E 449 
.312 
Copy 1 










mm 






i^^nmmmB'im^i 



&.^^fS' 





















A^hw'^'^^'. 






^^^■^r.. 






I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.! 

I __b # 












S%e// 












I J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, f 



msm; 









)fM^A^i 



.^^. 















.mm 



y'^-rs^OOQC^C^QOAl 












'^^AiT^V^^ 



,\^ooyA, 



pr^^^^' 









*%CA^OO'>ft, 



.;^S«^-;^;*^. 






'^^H^P^Sfll^U 






\ ^ A « : « ^ <?i A o a s S'- A- 1-5 



■r\^x^\'W 



^«^aa^:a^(?- 



?r\hOAA^'^/ 









rVV^^''AAA>>r> 






iAA^/^fl^Aa^^sS'^'^? 



■mmf\i 



^^%w^S::' 






Ae^^^ 



VXW^L^aA. 









-)k 



SPEECH 



WILLIAM COST JOHNSON, 



OF MARYLAND- 



OX THE SUBJECT OF THE REJECTION' 



PETITIONS FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY 

WITH SUPPLEMENTAL REMARKS, 



IX REPLY TO 



CERTAIN CHARGES AGAINST GENERAL HARRISON. 

DELIVEnED 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
Ja>-i-ary 35, 27, Axn 28, 1840. 

^ WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED BY GALES AND SEATON. 

1840. 



— ^ 



SPEECH 

OF 

WILLIAM COST JOHNSON 

OF MARYLAND, 
ON THE SUBJECT OF THE REJECTION 



PETITIONS FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY; 



WITH SUPPLEMENTAL REMARKS. 



IX IlEPLT TO 



CERTAIN CHARGES AGAINST GENERAL HARRISON. 



11Er.IVF.IlF.Il 



I.V TMK IIOUSK OF R E P U RS F, N T A T 1 V E S, 



Jaxl'ahy 25, 27, ami 28, 18i0, 






y 
€» WASHINGTON: 

PUINTKI) BY GALES AND SEATON 

1840. 



V-.' c, '.•.., ^H\H^ 



SPEECH. 



The House having under consideration the proposition of Mr. Thompson, of 
South Carolina, to amend the rules by the addition of the following: 

" Resolved, That upon the presentation of any memorial or petition for the abolition of slavery 
or the slave trade in any District, Territory, or State of the Union, and upon the presentation of 
any resolution or other paper touching that subject, the reception of such memorial, petition, 
resolution, or paper, shall be considered as objected to, and the question of its reception shall be 
laid on the table, without debate or further action thereon." 

And the proposition of Mr. John Q. Adams, as a substitute to the foregoing, 
in the following words : 

" Resolved, That the following be added to the standing rules of this House, to be numbered 
the 2 1st: 

"Every petition presented by the Speaker, or by any member, with a brief verbal statement 
of its contents, shall be received, unless objection be made to its reception for special reasons ; 
and whenever objection shall be made to the reception of a petition, the name of the member ob- 
jecting and the reason of the objection shall be entered on the Journal. The question in every 
such case shall be, ' Shall the petition be rejected?' and no petition shall be rejected but by a 
majority of the members present." 

Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, upon gaining the floor, said that, before entering on 
the subject of discussion before the House, lie had one word to say in reference 
to the unpleasant occurrence of last evening. 

He had understood that the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Bynum,) be- 
fore he made the motion for him to proceed in his remarks, had retracted the of- 
fensive words applied to the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Peck.) Amid the 
confusion and noise, he did not hear all that fell from the gentleman, but he had 
since learned, from the report in the Globe of this morning, that he had not done 
so. If he had so understood last night, he would not have requested the gentle- 
man from South Carolina (Mr. Thompson) to withdraw his resolution, nor would 
he have made the motion which he did. 

Mr. J. said, that he thought this explanation due to himself, for he was the last 
member in this House to justify or palliate unparliamentary language, and he be- 
lieved that such language was always more calculated to injure those who used it, 
than those to whom it was intended to apply. 

Mr.JoHNSON then proceeded, and said : I liave always, Mr. Speaker, been op- 
posed to the discussion of abolition in this House, in any manner whatever. I 
have never regarded it a debatable question in the Congress of the United States. 
It may have been supposed by many that, from my anxiety to get the floor, I 
was desirous to participate in the discussion of this exciting subject. Such was 
not the case. For the first ten days, my anxiety to get the floor was simply to 
call the previous question on the proposition of the gentleman from South Caro- 
lina, (Mr. Thompson,) for the purpose of arresting the discussion ; but, from the 
vast range which the debate has taken, not on the merits of the question only, 
but for the purpose, as I am constrained to believe, of making political capital 
out of it, upon which members may trade at home, in or with their party, I feel 
called on to depart from the course of silence which I had prescribed to myself, 
and must now trouble the House with a i'ew remarks. 



Mr. Speaker, were I to move the previous question now, the vote, under the 
change already made in the rules this session, would not be first taken on the res- 
olution of the gentleman from South Carolina, but would now have first to be put 
on the amendment recently offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Ad- 
ams ;) and in reference to this amendment, and to some of the remarks which fell 
from its able supporter, I desire to say a few words. 

I consider the resolutions heretofore offered too vague and indefinite to efiect 
any useful purpose or practical good ; and before I conclude, I will offer an amend- 
ment to the proposed amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, which will 
meet the question fairly and fully, which shall contain no ambiguity, and which 
will allow no gentleman to deceive his constituents, or leave " undejiiicd^'' his po- 
sition in relation to this subject. It is in these words : 

" Resolved, That no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper, praying the abolition of 
slavery in the Distiict of Columbia, or any State or Territory, or the slave trade between the 
States or Territories of the United States in which it now exists, shall be received by this House, 
or entertained in any way whatever.'" 

Mr. Johnson said that he felt it due to his constituents, and to the State which, 
in part, ho represented, that he should claim, for a short time, the indulgence of 
the House. He felt this duly strong upon him, from the peculiar position of his 
district, and the situation of his State, and the more especially so, when he thought 
that efforts had been made, by various gentlemen who had preceded him in this 
debate, to conciliate favor with the abolitionists of the North, at the expense of 
the feelings and interests of the South ; whilst others who had spoken had endeav- 
ored to throw reproach and odium upon the character of General Harrison, whose 
name they had introduced only for party purposes and political speculation. The 
tone and character of the debate, in conjunction with the fact that Maryland was 
more interested in the question than any other State, inade it manifestly proper, in 
his opinion and sense of duty, to waive his reluctance to discuss the question. He 
would, therefore, present the views of his State, as far as he represented it, on this 
deeply agitating question, with the opinions which he himself entertained, or 
such ideas as might occur to him while addressing the Chair, with frankness and 
sincerity, and with an intention not to offend the feelings of any one on this floor, 
or elsewhere, whatever might be the diversity of sentiment, difference of opin- 
ion on doctrines of principle, or questions and measures of expediency. 

Some days since, sir, I voted to lay the resolution of the gentleman from Vir- 
ginia (Mr. Coles) on the table.* No one is more willing than myself to accord 



*Wedxesday, Januaht 15, 1840. — (Journal, page 212.) 
A motion was made by Mr. Coles further to amend the rules by inserting therein a rule in 

the words following : 

"All petitions, memorials, and papers touching the abolition of slavery, or the buying, selling, 

or transferring of slaves in any State, District, or Territory of the United States, shall, upon 

their presentation, be laid on the table, without being debated, printed, read, or referred, and no 

further action whatever shall be had thereon." 

Same day. — (Page 215.) 

The question was then put on the motion of Mr. Thompson, of South Carolina, that the 
amendment to the rules, moved by Mr. Coles, do lie on the table, and passed in the affirmative — 
Yeas 102, nays 98. 

Those who voted in the affirmative, are — 

Messrs. John Quincy Adams, Julius C. Alford, John W. Allen, Simeon H. Anderson, Lan- 
daflf W. Andrews, Osmyn Baker, Daniel D. Barnard, John Bell, Edward J. Black, William 
K. Bond, George N. Briggs, John H. Brockway, Anson Brown, Samson H. Butler, William 
B. Calhoun, Zadok Casey, Thomas W. Chinn, Thomas C. Chittenden, John C. Clark, Walter 
T. Colquitt, James Cooper, Mark A. Cooper, Thomas Corvvin, George W. Crabb, Robert B. 
Cranston, John W. Crockett, Edward Curtis, Caleb Gushing, Thomas Davee, Edward Davies, 
Garrett Davis, William C. Dawson, James Dellet, John Edwards, John Ely, George Evans, 
Horace Everett, Millard Fillmore, Charles Fisher, Isaac Fletcher, Rice Garland, Seth M. Gates, 



lo that gentleman the best feelings, and the strongest interest for the South. 1 
know full well his devotion to the interests of his constituents, and tiieirdeep aver- 
sion to the intermeddling of the abolitionists of the North witii their vested and un- 
questionable rights; but his resolution admitted the right of petition, and denied 
the right of reference, and, without intending such a consequence, virtually invited 
the abolitionists lo send their memorials here, and then to smother them on the 
table. 

The reception of a petition carries with it the admission of a correlative right 
to have it referred ; for the deliberative body which will entertain a petition by 
so far considering it as to receire it, admits, by the very act itself, that the petition 
should be referred and gravely considered. It does more ; it admits jurisdiction 
on the subject-matter of the petition ; for it cannot be said, in justification of re- 
ceiving a petition, that tlie contents of the petition could not be known until re- 
ceived, referred, and reported to the House, since the rule of the House requires 
each member otfering a petition to give a short verbal statement of its contents. 
Thus., by the act of presentation, the House is at once apprized, before the petition 
is received, of its contents, and, I maintain, the House should never for a mo- 
ment entertain such petition wl)en it has not jurisdiction over the subject-matter. 

Upon this point, (said Mr. Johnson,) I will make a few additional remarks, 
before I conclude what 1 have to say; but at this time I will make a passing 
remark upon what fell from the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Bynum,) 
who has jusi taken his seat, in relation to the report and resolutions offered by Mr. 
Pinckney, of South Carolina, as chairman of a select committee on the subject ot 
abolition memorials, in the twenty-fourth Congress. 

The gentleman from North Carolina spent at least an hour in eulogizing that re- 



Charles Jolinston, William Cost Johnson, Thomas Kempshall, Abbot Lawrence, Levi Lincoln, 
Joshua A. Lowell, Richard P. Marvin, Charles F. Mitchell, Christopher Morgan, Calvary Mor- 
ris, Charles Naylor, EugeiiiusA. Nisbet, Charles Ogle, Thomas B.Osborne, Rufus Palen, Wil- 
liam Parmenter, Luther C. Peck, Francis W. Pickens, John Pope, George H. Proflit, Benja- 
min Randall, Joseph F. }landolph, James Rariden, John Reed, John Reynolds, Joseph Ridgway, 
David Russell, Leverett Sallonstall, William, Simonton, William Slade, Truman Smith, Ed- 
ward Stanly, William L. Storrs, John T. Stuart, Thomas D. Sumpter, Waddy Thompson, jr., 
Jacob Thompson, Joseph L Tillinghast, George W. Toland, Joseph Trumbull, Peter J. Wagner, 
Lott Warren, John White, Thomas W. Williams, Joseph L. Williams. 

Those who voted in the negative, arc — 

Messrs Judson Allen, Hugh J. Anderson, Charles G. Athcrlon, Linn Banks, William Beatty, 
Julius W. Blackwell, Linn Boyd, David P. Brewster, Aaron Y. Brown, Albert G. Brown, Ed- 
mund Burke, John Cajnpbeil,' William B. Campbell, John Carr, James Canoll, William B. 
Carter, Reuben Chapman, ^athan Clifford, Walter Coles, Henry W. Connor, Robert Craig, 
Isaac E. Crary, Edward Cross, Amasa Dana, John Davis, John W. Davis, Edmund Deberry, 
William Uoaii, Andrew W. Doig, George C. Dromgoole, Nehemiah H Eail, La A. Eastman, 
John G. Floyd, Joseph Fornance, James Garland, William L Goggin, James Graham, Robert 
H. Hammond, Augustus C. Hand, John Has ings, Micajah T. Plawkins, John Hill of Virginia, 
John Hill of North Carolina, Joel Hollemaii, Enos Hook, George W. Hopkins, Tilghman A. 
Howard, David Hubbard, Thomas B. Jackson, Joseph Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, John W. 
Jones, George M. Keim, Gouverneur Kemble, Daniel P. Leadbetter, Isaac liCet, Stephen B. 
Leonard, Dixon H Lewis, William Lucas, Abraham McClellan, George McCuUoh, James J. 
McKay, 'Meredith Mallory, Albert G. Marchand, William Mediil, James de la Montanya, Wil- 
liam Montgomery, Samuel W. Morris, Peter Newhard, Isaac Parish, Yirgil D. Parris, Lemuel 
Paynter, David "Petrikin, John H Prentiss, William S. Ramsey, tJreen B. Samuels, Tristram 
Shaw, Charles Shejiard, Albert Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, David A. Starkweather, 
Lewis Steenrod, Theron R. Strong, George Sweeny, John Taliaferro, Philip F. Thomas, Philijn 
Triplett, Hopkins L. Turnev, Aaron Vanderpoel, David D. Wagener, Harvey M. Watterson, 
John B.' Weller, William W.Wick, Jared W. Williams, Lewis Williams, Christopher H. 
Williams, Sherrod Williams. 



port and the resolutions winch were adopted by the House, and was willing, eithet 
directly or indirectly, to charge every member who differed with the report and 
resolutions as either an abolitionist or an accessary to abolitionism, and an enemy 
to the South. At the hazard of such a denunciation, I have no hesitation in declar- 
ing that I do not subscribe to either the report or the resolutions, and for this sin- 
gle reason: the report and the. resolutions waive the expression of a decided opin- 
ion in relation to the powers of Congress on the subject of slavery in the District 
of Columbia. They do not deny the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the 
District of Columbia; and, by their silence on the question, the very head and 
front of all the memorials referred to that committee, the report and resolutions, 
tacitly admit both the power and the jurisdiction of Congress in the premises. 
Willing, then, am I to throw myself within the limit of the gentleman's denuncia- 
tion ; and willing am I that he, and others who think with him, may call me an 
abolitionist and an enemy to the South, when I declare that I utterly deny the 
power of Congress to interfere in any way whatever with the relation of master 
and slave in the District of Columbia, and o[ienly, frankly, and fearlessly declare 
that I believe that Congress has no power whatever to interfere with the question 
of slavery in any District, Territory, or State, in which it existed at the time of 
the adoption of the federal constitution. 

The gentleman spent quite as much time in panegyrizing the resolutions of the 
gentleman from New Hampshire, (Mr. Atherton,) passed by the last Congress, 
and usually denominated '-'■ Athcrtoti' s Resolutions.'" Were these resolutions the 
offspring of the South'? Were the feelings or interests of the South consulted? 
Were the Representatives of the South frankly consulted as to the merits or ten- 
dency of those resolutions? Were any but the friends of the Administration 
consulted in relation to those peculiar resolutions? No, sir. The resolutions 
were prepared, concocted, and digested by a party, and solely for party ef- 
fect, without the slightest regard to the interests of the South, and with a view 
solely to entrap the South into support of the Administration, by pretending that 
a gentleman of the North, who was a friend of the Adn)inistration, had taken the 
South under his especial care and protection ; that the friends of the Administra- 
tion in the South might declare here and elsewhere that the Administration was 
all right upon the subject; and that the friends of the Administration in the North 
consulted nothing — thought of nothing — but the welfare of the South, and, in their 
great love of the South, would willingly make themselves martyrs to the cause. I 
represent (said Mr. J.) a district more interested in the question of slavery than any 
other in the United States, because it extends from the District of Columbia, a 
part of which was taken from my district, to the Pennsylvania line ; yet I was not 
consulted, nor was a single Representative opposed to the Administration, frons 
Mason and Dixon's line to the Gulf of Mexico. It was na part of the plan that we 
should be consulted, and this was more than immaterial, in reference to the purposes 
souf^ht to be effected; therefore were the resolutions prepared in the dark — in con- 

elave and concocted as the ingredients of Shakspeare's witches, in order that 

politicians might make them boil and bubble in the great political caldron as the 
arch magician waved his mystic wand. 

But, sir, what was the character of these famous resolutions, so mucli eulogized 
bv the' gentleman from North Carolina? Were they calculated to quiet the ap- 
prehensions of the South ? Were they so framed as entirely to exclude this angry 
question from the Halls of Congress? Did they deny the right of Congress to 
legislate on this subject, for the District of Columbia? No, sir; they did not. 
They virtually admitted the right, by their silence, that Congress had jurisdiction 
in the matter, and they left unprotected the most important [)oint and region in 
ibe whole controversy. Did they deny the right of petition on this subject? Did 
they even assert that Congress would not entertain the petitions of abolitionists? 
No, sir, they did not. They admitted the right of petition, and made it the duty 



of the House to receive all petitions on the subject, and thus far they went the 
whole length and breadth of abolition, but they refused to refer such petitions — 
laid them on the table — so that, whilst they pleased the abolitionists of the North, 
by receiving their petitions, as an offset to this courtesy, the South was to be 
pleased by laying them on the table. They encouraged the abolitionists to peti- 
tion, by receiving their petitions, by acknowledging their right and the jurisdiction 
of Congress ; and, by refusing to consider them further, calculated to lull the alarm 
of the credulous South. Such was the character of these " Atherton resolutions," 
and such as 1 have described them were the motives for moving them. If such 
were not the motives, why were not Southern gentlemen, who had as deep an in- 
terest as any of the friends of the Administration — why were they not consulted ? 
Why were tlic resolutions moved without the knowledge, privity, or consent of a 
single Opposition member from the South 1 And why was the previous question 
called by the mover after he had made a speech, without allowing a single Oppo- 
sition member from the South to say one word 1 The Administration had the 
majority in the House, and knew full well that they could carry any resolutions, 
however ambiguous and indefinite. It is true that 1 voted for all of these resolutions 
when the vote was taken separately upon them, except one, which contained so 
much jargon and vain circumlocution that I understood it about as well as the 
gentleman who moved it. 

There is another resolution, Mr. Speaker, which has met with high commenda- 
tion in this discussion — the resolution oftered by a gentleman from Virginia, and 
generally known as " Patton's resolution." 1 well remember its history : about 
the time that it was offered, some great moves and changes were about being 
made on the political chess-board. Abolition excitement in the North was to 
be met ostensibly by counter-excitement in the South, and a struggle ensued 
who could be most ultra in advocating Southern rights. The South was invoked, 
and Southern Representatives were called on to take firm ground in the half real, 
half imaginary, yet wholly selfish conflict. They were invited to withdraw from 
the Hall, and nearly all the Southern Representatives did withdraw to the com- 
mittee room of the District of Columbia. I looked calmly on this heroic piece of 
acting, and was about the last to withdraw, and not then until urged by a friend, (Mr. 
J. L. Williams, of Tennessee,) whose seat was beside mine, and who viewed the 
whole performance in the same light that I did. I went to the committee room 
with no feelings of excitement, but with a firm purpose to expose and denounce 
the first member who should propose a dissolution of the Union. No proposition 
of the kind was made ; 1 attended no subsequent meeting, and resolved within 
myself never again to secede from the Hall, unless it should be never again to re 
turn to it. 

[Mr. Williams, of North Carolina here rose and said that he would take this 
occasion to say that he, as one of the Representatives from the South, did not agree 
ill the movement, nor did he attend the meetings. 

Mr. Graves, of Kentucky, also rose and said that, although he withdrew, he 
had not, for a moment, contemplated a dissolution of the Union.] 

Mr. Johnson resumed, and said that he had been speaking of his own course, 
and of that with reluctance. He had now, as then, speculated upon the course 
of others, without, however, for a moment intending to make the slightest allusion 
to, or reflection on, the course of the two gentlemen who had just given explana- 
tions. He would be understood elsewhere. He did not allude to the past for the 
purpose of causing excitement now, but to express his belief that at that time it 
was more pretended than real. 

I saw, then, (said Mr. J,,) or thought I saw, that some gentlemen from the 
South were using the excitement, or rather trying to create the excitement in 
order to use it, to gain for themselves personal political importance for ulterior 
movements. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bynum) has alluded to 



the meeting of tlie Southern Delegation on liiat occasion, and lias highly conipli- 
niented the resolution which was adopted. He has spoken of it as containing the 
deliberate, permanent sentiments of the South, and said that the resolution was all 
that the South had a right to ask or desire. Let nie tell the gentleman and tlie 
House, that, so far from the resolution reported by Mr. Patton containing the 
fixed and permanent sentiments of the Southern Representatives, it was intended 
only to be a temporary measure, to meet the exigency of the cjuestion in the 
House the next morning. 

As these proceedings have not transpired, I will give them at length, as showing 
the tone and temper of the times. They have been politely furnished, at my re- 
quest, by my friend Mr. Wise, whom I am sorry to find too unwell to be in his 
place and to participate in this debate. 

"At a meeting of a portion of the niemlters of Congress representing slaveliokling States, 
held at the room of the Committee of the District of Columbia, on the 20th day of December, 
1837, the following resolution was adopted: 

" 'Resolved, That the chairman of this meeting appoint a commiltcc, to consist oifhee Sen- 
ators and of three members of the House of Representatives, one of each from the three grand 
divisons of the slaveholding States, to consider of, and report upon, such proceedings as ought 
to he adopted by a meeting to be held by the Senators and Representatives of the slaveholding 
States this evening, at 7 o'clock P. M., in the room of the Committee of the District of Co- 
lumbia, on the subject of the legislation and proceedings of Congress touching the abolition of 
slavery.' 

"In pursuance of the foregoing resolution, Mr. Wise of Virginia, Mr. Yell of Arkansas, and 
Mr. Turney of Tennessee, of the House of Representatives, and Mr. King of Alabama, Mr. 
Cuthbert of Georgia, and Mr. Crittenden of Kentucky, of the Senate, were appointed the com- 
mittee; and at the subsequent meeting, at 7 o'clock, Mr. Wise, from the said committee, made 
(he following report : 

" 'The committee appointed to report to the meeting of the Senators and Representatives of 
the slaveholding States to be held at 7 o'clock this evening, on the subject of the legislation and 
proceedings of Congress respecting the abolition of slavery, beg leave to submit the following 
resolutions. With a view to immediate action and temporary measures, the committee recom- 
mend to said meeting to adopt the following: 

" 'Resolved, That, reserving the question whether Congress has the constitutional power to 
receive memorials and petitions praying for the aboliticm of slavery in any District, Territory, oi 
State of the United States, it be, and is hereby, recommended to the House of Representatives 
to adopt and pass the following resolution, to wit: 

'< ' Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, and papers, touching the abolition of slavery or 
the slave trade in any State, District, or Territory of the United States, be laid upon the table, 
without being debated, printed, read, or referred ; and that no further action whatever shall be 
had thereon. 

" 'And with a view to permanent measures of caution and safety, in defence of slaveholding 
rights and interests, this committee recommend to said meeting to adopt the following : 

«♦ 'Resolved, That the respective delegations of the slaveholding States be requested to meet, 
as early as their convenience will permit, for the purpose of concocting and digesting measures 
for the defence of the rights of the slaveholding States, of the constitution, and of the Union : 
and that they shall each appoint a committee, to constitute, with others, a general committee, to 
embody the views and opinions of the Senators and Rei)rcsentativfs of the slaveholding States 
on the subject of the abolition of slavery, and to report the same to a general meeting of the said 
Senators and Representatives, to be called and held at such time and place as said general com- 
mittee shall appoint.' 

"The report having been read, the meeting amended the first resolution, recommended to he 
reported to the House, by striking out the words 'slave trade,'' and inserting the words 'buy- 
ing, selling, or transferring .pf slaves.' And thereupon the meeting adopted the report, and 
ordered the chairman (Mr. Palton) to report the said resolution to tlie House of Representa- 
tives." 

Thus it will be seen that it was expressly declared in the preamble to the reso= 
lution, which preamble was not reported to th.e House but adopted by the meet- 
ing, that the resolution was intended as a temporary measure for the urgent time 
and immediate action, and was not intended to compromise the question of a re- 
jection of all abolition memorials. 

Such is the plain and true history of that resolution, which has found such mar- 
vellous favor in the eyes of the gentleman from North Carolina, that it seems he 



would denounce all as abolilionists, or aiders and abetters of abolition, who for a 
moment doubt the wisdom of that temporary expedient as a permanent measure. 
It was adopted upon the spur of the moment, to meet the question which was so 
quickly to recur, the Representatives from the South agreeing to consult, as early 
as their convenience would permit, upon some fixed and more decisive measures of 
action. 

That the matter ended here, and that nothing further of consequence occurred, 
was, I believe, because the various parties and interests began to look upon each 
other with, distrust ; for, in my apprehension, there was abundant cause for sus- 
picion ; and the designing members found themselves foiled. 

I will not be so unjust as to say that every gentleman who differs with me in 
opinion on this question is an abolitionist; nor will I indulge in harsh, unmeasured 
language of invective. Whilst I have my own fixed views on the whole question, 
i am willing to believe that those who differ with me are as honest as myself. 

But this famous resolution, which Mr. Patton reported as chairman of that ex- 
traordinary meeting, was far from terminating the excitement in this House, inci- 
dent to the question of aholitiow — and why] Because it admitted the right of re- 
ception, and then laid the petitions on the table without debate. Yes, oven under 
that very resolution, more than one angry incidental debate was forced upon the 
House, which caused much more irritated feeling than if the reception of the 
memorials, in any and every form, had been at once and forever refused. 

Such, Mr. Speaker, 1 believe, and in a great degree know, to be the history of 
the past on this vexed and harassing question ; all of which, summed up in a sin- 
gle sentence, shows that Congress, by their vacillating action, by receiving peti- 
tions and then laying them on the table, has tantalized the South with the hope of 
peace and quiet, Whilst the abolitionists have been indirectly encouraged to move 
on with their agitation and excitement ; hoping, no doubt, that, by the reception 
of their petitions, they have gained a foothold on the ramparts of the constitution, 
and, by perseverance, that they may overthrow the Union, and deluge the South 
in blood. 

But, sir, I now say to members from the South, if they are as anxious as my- 
self to quell this question, if th^y feel its importance as 1 do, and think with me, 
let them vote with me on a proposition which will admit of no doubtful construc- 
tion ; which will meet the crisis, and will meet it firmly, and I trust eflectually. 
If they differ with me, let them vote against my proposition. I, for one, am tired 
of this annual, almost perpetual discussion, which can eflect no social, moral, or 
political good; which cannot benefit, but may deeply injure the South; which has 
this session, as on former occasions, had a political bearing on the parties of the 
day, instead of being contemplated as a great constitutional question, involving, 
not only measures of expediency and the poweis of the Government, but the very 
|?erpetuity of the Union. 

On the other hand, I know full well that gentleiuen from the North view this 
question as involving the right of petition; and, wanting the moral courage to 
separate the question, they, in fact, give life and vigor to the agitating movements 
of the abolitionists by supporting the broad principle of the right of petition. They 
are unwilling to give a direct vote, because, if they vote their real judgment, they 
will offend the abolitionists ; if they vote to please the abolitionists in all they wish, 
they not only outrage the interests and rights of the South, but will violate the 
feelings and "principles of a large portion, perhaps a majority, o1 their constituents. 
Thus, some middle, unmeaning, or rather double-meaning pro[»osilion would be 
more agreeable to them ; and the more Janus-faced the proposition, the more 
popular'^it will be with the mere politicians of the Mouse, who, without intending 
disrespect to any, I greatly fear are a majority. All the gentlemen who have 
spoken admit tliat, if Congress possesses the power to abolish slavery in the Dis- 
trict of Columbii, it is inexpedient to exercise that power. Then why not tell 



10 

their constituents so ? Why not frankly t<'ll them that thry wiH not present their 
petitions upon a question which is fraught vvitli excitement and mischief? Are 
their constituents reasonable and intelligent men 1 If they are, and mean no evil 
to their country, they would thank a Representative who would frankly admonish 
them on the subject. If their constituents are vicious, and would overthrow the 
Government, their Representatives are conspirators with them in aiding and abet- 
ting so unhallowed a purpose. If Congress has tlie power to abolish slavery in 
any regions of the South where it now exists, and the members of this House 
think it unwise, inexpedient, and dangerous to the Union to exercise the power, 
they should refuse to present petitions fraught with such evil. If they believe 
that Congress has no power over the subject of slavery where it now exists, the 
very act of presenting petitions becomes criminal against the Government. 

Then, if the constitution gives Congress no power over the subject, or if it tol- 
erates and sanctions the power, and the Representatives of the people think it un- 
wise, dangerous, and subversivo of social peace and constitutional rights to exer- 
cise such power, they should not force the petitions of the abolitionists upon this 
House. I do not advocate principles nor commend a policy to others which I 
would not exercise myself. It is most true that I utterly deny the power of Con- 
gress to exercise any power, constitutionally, over the subject of slavery in the 
District of Columbia, or in the iStates and Territories in which it existed at the 
lime of the adoption of the constitution ; yet I admit that Congress has power, to a 
certain extent, over the subject, in the Territories in which slavery did not exist. 
I admit that Congress has power to legislate over the subject of the loreign slave 
trade, to legislate over the subject of fugitive slaves, and to legislate in relation 
to the independence of Hayti, as well as to make commercial treaties with that 
Government, and other republics of a sin)ilar character. The expediency of le- 
gislating in relation to Hayti, I am, however, fully prepared to oppose. It was 
during the last Congress that a memorial was handed to me for presentation by a 
constituent of mine, who had liberated a large number of slaves and sent them to 
Hayti, praying that Congress would establish commercial relations with Hayti, 
and receive and interchange ministers or commercial agents. The memorial was 
signed by a large and respectable number of my constitu(-nls ; but I refused to 
present it, upon the ground that it would lead to angry debate, and effect more 
evil than good. Upon my return home, I informed the signers of my course, and 
my reasons fur it, and not one that I conversed with but approved of my conduct ; 
and my majority, on re-election, was nearly double what it ever had been before. 
I thought that to present the niemorial would be to throw a firebrand into the House ; 
and my forfibodings were realized. My constituents sought some one else to pre- 
sent it; but when the astute and vigilant gentleman from Massachusetts took oc- 
casion to refer to that memorial, in reply to my then colleague, the then chairman 
of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in the debate, I gave some explanation 
as to the respectability of the character of the petitioners, and afterwards found 
myself credited in tin; Emancipator, which reported the speech of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, as having presented that very petition. I have introduced 
this circumstance for no other purpose than to show that 1 have practised upon 
principles of expediency in relation to questions over which I consider Congress 
has full power to legislate, and thus, with greater force and propriety, to urge 
those gentlemen who think that Congress has jurisdiction over the question of 
slavery in the District of Columbia, and believe that it would be inexpedient to 
exercise the power, to say so to their constituents, and refuse to present their ma- 
lign petitions. This I am persuaded they will do, unless they think that the doc- 
trine of expediency had better be construed in favor of their popularity with the ab- 
olitionists, than for the good of the country; unless they esteem the peace, quiet, 
and general welfare of the country of less consideration than their favorable stand- 
ing with the fanatic advocates of abolition. My estimation of the true character of 



11 

a member of Congress is that he stands, or should stand, as a middle barrier between 
encroachments on the constitution by the Executive or the legislative branches 
of the Government, and infractions of social order, of civil and political liberty, 
which maybe attempted by designing men, either to subserve their own evil pur- 
poses or to gratify the bad passions of the disaffected and turbulent. Sworn to 
support the constitution, he should not, directly or indirectly, allow its violation, nor 
aid and abet the movements of those who would endanger, in the slightest degree, 
the peace and integrity of the Union. In the language of another, instead of 
being a weathercock on the temple of Freedom, to be blown in any and every di- 
rection by every gust of popular prejudice and caprice, he should be one of the 
firm pillars of Slate to support the noble edifice. 

But some gentlemen have argued, with seeming sincerity, that this question 
caused too much excitement and alarm in the South. They say that the South is 
too quickly excited — that, in presenting the petitions of the abolitionists, they only 
want to defend the right of petition, and to declare, in the calmest way possible, 
that they are opposed to immediate abolition, but think slavery a moral, social, 
and political evil which the South should make ready to abolish. They say thaj 
if the South will not take the benefit of their friendly warning and voluntary ad- 
vice, the time may come, nay, will come, when the abolitionists cannot be re- 
strained; and if there should be insurrections, assassinations, and murders, why, 
the South will be to blame, because they did not take the early and friendly ad- 
vice to hold their peace and allow the abolitionists to do as they please. These 
gentlemen say that whilst tliey know that an open brawler on abolition would not 
be tolerated in any portion of the South, and ought not to be, they, as men)bers of 
Congress, have a right to discuss the whole question here; to speak of slavery as a 
crime and a sin, and talk of the immorality of the South in the very heart of the 
South ; that they have a right to make speeches here, which go to every part of 
the Union, which can be read by every free negro or slave who can read, showing 
how strongly the doctrine of abolition is sustained by able members from llie 
North in concert witii thousands of fanatic petitioners and hypocritical sympa- 
thizers. Sir, it may be very easy for some of these gentlemen to declaim ; it may 
be very amusing to be eloquent, and it may be politic in them to appear humane, 
when it costs them nothing, but gains them political capital ; but he who at this day 
and in this country, in speaking of slavery, talks of stains, without showing" how 
they can be effaced — of crimes, without sliowmg how they can be suppressed— of 
wickedness, without showing how it can be avoided, however signal his own vir- 
tues and illustrious his talents, teaches but an extravagant and false morality, and 
exhibits proofs of the inconsistency and fatuity of the highest human intellect under 
the hallucinations of fanaticism. Yet some gentlemen think it marvellously won- 
derful that the Representatives from the South will not let the abolitionists of the 
North thrust their hands into the pockets of the [)eople of the South ; they think it 
strange that the Soutli will not place their property, held before the constitution, 
in despite of the constitution, and by the constitution, on the Speaker's desk, and 
go into grave and solemn discussion and legislation to determine whether it is their 
property or not. They say they only ask the South to do this to settle the ques- 
tion and to quiet the abolitionists; and when they say that in friendship to the 
South — they will vote that it is really the property of the South — that a slave is 
the property of his master — they affect to be astonished that we will not trust the 
question with them. But let me tell those gentlemen, that while they are honest, 
all who succeed them may not be. Let me tell tliem that to admit the right 
of Congress to decide that slaves are the property of the South is at once to 
admit the right of Congress to legislate on the subject ; once admit the right of 
Congress to decide in favor of the South, or to decide at all, and yon admit the 
right to decide against the South, if it should be deemed wise, prudent, or ex- 
pedient. Principle, our rights anterior to the constitution, the constitution itself, 



12 



forbids that Congress should legislate upon our property ; and expediency, self-pro- 
tection, admonish us not to hold or listen to a discussion on the subject. 

But, Mr, Speaker, I would nut have trespassed on the time of the llouse more 
than a quaiter of an hour, had wot the learned gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Adams) made a speech. I endeavored to obtain the floor when he had concluded, 
but failed. 1 must say, with great candor and sincerity, thai 1 most highly, perhaps 
enthusiastically, admire the vast and varied erudition of that gentleman, liis great 
political knowled'^e, his eminent virtues and distinguished services. But, notwith- 
standing all this, 1 was grieved at the course which he pursued in debate. I had 
fondly hoped that, having gained the acme of his fame; having filled the highest 
office in the gift of the most potent republic in the world ; having passed through all 
the ranks of distinction in the zodiac of honors, he would have been willing, ay, 
anxious to throw oil on the troubled waters, instead of rnd(!avoring to increase 
their an^ny commotion. But no: he strikes them with his wand, yet not as one 
of old dui, that healing may come from them. I had hoped that he would have 
looked upon this question as one of vast national interest, in which were involved 
the destinies of a whole people. 1 had thought that he, above all men in Con- 
gress, would have taken an expansive and statesmanlike view of the whole sub- 
ject ;'would have examined the philosophy of our Government, considered the con- 
stitution as the established result of concession and compromise, and would have 
esteemed tlie Union too dear and sacred to admit its value to be calculated, 1 
know full well the peril which I encounter when 1 attempt to attack the positions 
of that learned and distinguished gentleman; but, at the risk of meeting all his 
powers, great as they are acknowledged to be, 1 must not hesitate to debate the 
most of his arguments, to dispute the most of his premises, and to deny the majority 
of his conclusions. I shall do this, because I know that the opinions of the distin- 
guished gentleman have more influence than those of any half dozen gentlemen on 
this floor; and in saying this, I neither moan disparagement to others, nor an idle 

compliment to him. r at i /i\t 

What have been the princi[)al |)oiuts ol the gentleman from Massaciiusetts, (ivlr. 
Adams)? He has raised five or six. The first was, that Congress had jurisdic- 
tion under the laws of nature; the second was upon the law of God; the third 
upon the Declaration of Independence ; the founh upon that provision in the 
constitution which gives Congress the power to legislate upon the interests of the 
District of Columbia ; and the last was upon that clause in the constitution which 
declares the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Govern- 
ment for a redress of grievances. 

Now, sir, as to the first point. 1 would ask the learned gentleman if we were 
assembled here for the purpose of discussing the laws of nature ? Were the mem- 
bers of the American Congress of the United Stales elected to examine and con- 
form to the laws of nature? Have we sworn, in the discharge of our high duties, 
to obey, sanction, and carry into eflect the laws of nature ? What are the laws 
of nature ? Who will be kind enough to explain them 1 for the learned gentleman 
has omitted to do so. Altiiough he has alluded to them with so much earnestness, 
and made them the basis of his argument, 1 frankly confess that, as much as I 
have read of the speculative theories of the laws of nature, I have never been 
able to form any very distinct idea upon the subjccl. If 1 have any opinion on 
the question, it is, that a state of nature is a state of war, where sense of justice 
and law is unknown; where might constitutes right; where physical power is the 
only umpire; and where written laws are totally unknown, or, if known, totally 
disregarded. ' It was from reflecting upon man in a state of nature, no doubt, thai 
induced Hobbes to say that " the natural state of man 7ms war.'' Then, would 
the gentleman resolve us into that stale? Read the history of the world, from the 
earliest dawnings of civilization to the present time, and what lesson does it teach 
us? Does it not exhibit one endless scene of confusion and war? Does it not 
present one unbroken, shoreless sea of blood and carnage? Man, in a state of 



13 

nature, is a savage animal, witiiout the restraint of reason — governed alone by 
the impulses of passion and his lawless domineering self-inlerest. Are wo to go 
back to the days of barbarism, of individual prowess and physical power? Are 
we to forget that we have written laws and an established consiitution 1 Will the 
honorable gentleman class us with the red men of our wild and romantic forests'? 
What are our Indians in their almost state of nature? Have they an idea of writ- 
ten laws ; or are they not governed by the usages of savages ? Do not wild daring, 
a contempt of life, a disregard of an overruling Providence, mark their character? 
Must we, like Pusli-mat-a-ha,* who has been interred in your Congressional 
burial ground, believe that human existence is generated in the clouds, and springs 
from the lightning of heaven ; that he, like Minerva, sprung into existence full 
grown and full armed for conflict? 

I trust the day is far distant when the members of this House will urge, as a 
justification for the overthrow of the constitution, that it is a restraint upon na- 
tural rights ; that we are not a political body, but an assemblage of lawless men, 
each acting under the impulses of feeling, and hardly two agreeing in the applica- 
tion of the laws of nature. Civilization is spreading abroad, as with the wings of 
light, and man is fast being reclaimed from a slate of nature. With civilization, 
the human mind expands in moral power, and the richest blessings of life are 
spread around. The brightest and the best of these is a Government which se- 
cures civil, religious, and political liberty. Whilst constitutional law restrains those 
natural rights which interfere with civil order, and are injurious to the body poli- 
tic, it guaranties the rights of property, and secures freedom of conscience, and 
allows it to commune with the Divine essence, without the fear of being harmed 
by human fanaticism and the self-constituted of orthodox theology. 

But, Mr. Speaker, I grieved more when, on the second point of the gentleman, 
I heard an invocation of the laws of God. Have we been sent to Congress by the 
people of the United States, to discuss the laws of God? Where do we derive the 
power to resolve ourselves into a House of Bishops, to dispute points of theological 
controversy ? Who will undertake to say that he is the inspired instrument to de- 
cide upon the ordinances, the precepts, and the laws of the Supreme Being ? Who 
will here undertake " to hurl damnation round the land on all he deems God's 
foe ?" I have always believed that the Congress of the United States was circum- 
scribed in the sphere of its action by written human laws, and that the constitu- 
tion, the organic law of the nation, gave it existence and limitation ; that we had 
pledged ourselves, by the highest human means, and the most solemn injunctions, 
not to wander beyond the strict letter of that instrument; yet in all this I must 
be mistaken, if the gentleman's argument has force and application. But, sir, 
whilst I find in the constitution no authority to legislate upon the principles of the 
law of nature, 1 find in it an express prohibition to discuss the Divine law. 
*' Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or pro- 
hibiting the free exercise thereof." Thus are we restrained from legislating about 
religious creeds, or interfering with the human conscience. The doors of every 
church are thrown open to the American people by that instrument, and each and 
all can worship in his own manner, and after such form as his conscience may dic- 

' * Push-mat-a-ha signifies superior excellence. In tlie language of his tribe, it is a distinction 
of honor. He twice gained it by the accord of his tribe, after having resigned it and become a 
brave. He was a warm friend of the United States during the last war, and his idea of his exist- 
ence was expressed in a council of conference, as reported to me by one who was present. It 
surpasses any thing in Ossian. 

He said that " Push-mat-a-ha never drew sustenance from woman, nor was dandled on her 
knee. A dark cloud passed over the horizon ; a flash of lightning rent a tall pine asunder ; and 
out stepped Push-mat-a-ha, a full grown warrior, with a rifle on his shoulder." 

He died at Washington : his last words are written on the humble monument that marks his 
place of burial : " When I am dead, let the big guns be fired over me," 



14 

tate. In what I have said, I do not mean to deny the obligation under which every 
liuHKin being must be to tiie Divine law; but 1 insist that this is not a place for its 
discussion or its enforcement ; yet were it, it would not be difficult to find in the 
holy Bible high sanction for slavery ; for, from almost the beginning to the end 
thereof, will be found the institution of slavery recognised and referred to, and no- 
where can be found an autiiority or sanction for a good Christian to covet his neigh- 
bor's property — his man-servant or his maid-servant.* 

But, passing from the contemplation of the Divine law, which I would regard 



* Of the slavery which the Supreme Being has permitted throughout all time to exist, in 
Asia and Africa, and at this very moment in a great part of Europe also, I say nothing; I 
draw no inference from it, in extenuation of our crime in holding slaves, whose emancipa- 
tion would be no less ruinous to themselves than to their owners. Nor will I avail myself 
of the fact, that the patriarch Abraham, to whom the Bible records a promise from Heaven 
"that in his seed should all the nations of the earth be blessed," was the proprietor at 
one time of three hundred servants, (slaves, in the meaning of the Hebrew word,) all of 
whom were born in his own house. Nor of the fact that his son Isaac was not deemed 
unworthy of the special favor of God, although he also had "great store of servants." All 
these things may be passed by. The Jewish code of laws, proceeding, as we are taught to be- 
lieve, immediately from God himself, authorizes slavery among his chosen people ; points out 
distinctly the mode in which a freeman, loving his wife and children who are slaves, may him- 
self become a slave forever ; and expressly authorizes the Jews to purchase the children of the 
strangers that sojourn among them to be bondmen forever, and to be an inheritance for their 
children. All this being expressly laid down in the Bible, the Pentateuch must be abandoned 
as an absolute imposture, if the law authorizing slavery is not of Divine origin; and he who calls 
domestic slavery, whether by compact or by birth, "the consummation of all wickedness," 
will find it difficult to exculpate himself from the charge of blasphemy against the Most High. 
Bishop Newton, in his Dissertation on the Prophecies, urges the present and past coiidition of 
the Africans as a fulfilment of a prophecy, and as evidence, of course, of the Divine authority of the 
Bible. Noah, in his prophetic wrath, had said, "Cursed be (^naan ; a servant of servants 
shall he be unto his brethren ; and blessed be the Lord God of S^em, and Canaan shall be his 
servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem ; and Canaan 
shall be his servant!" Now, the Africans, the Bi.shop undertakes to show, are the descendants 
of Canaan, and their slavery is an accomplishment of Noah's prediction. 

This is not all. At the time when the Christian religion was first preached among mankind, 
slavery existed, and had long existed, not only in Judea, but in Greece and Rome, and in every 
part of the world then known. Among the Jews, the law of Moses was yet in force. Of this 
law, concerning slavery, no direct notice is taken by the founder of the Christian religion. As 
to the practice under it, he is equally silent. But he " came not to destroy the law or the 
prophets, but to fulfil." He not only does not condemn slavery, but actually gives to it 
a sort of sanction, by borrowing from that state, in its most tremendous form, an illustra- 
tion of his parables. The kingdom of heaven itself is likened " to a certain king, who 
would take an account of his servants, and forasmuch as one of them 'had not to pay,' his 
lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife and children, and all that he had, and payment to 
be made." The servant, having fallen down and "worshipped" his master, was released; but, 
being accused of harshness to another servant, he was "delivered over to the tormenters." 
The kingdom of heaven is again compared to a master travelling into a far country, and who, 
on his return, directs the servant who had buried his talent to be cast into utter darkness. A 
third illustration, equally grave and solemn, is taken from the return of a master, whose servant, 
knowing his lord's willj prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, and is "beaten 
with many stripes." Now, if domestic slavery had been deemed by our Saviour an atrocious 
crime, would it have been passed over without censure ? Would the doctrine of salvation have 
been illustrated by a reference to it, direct and unequivocal ? Should we not have been told, not 
that the rich man, but that the slaveholder, could not enter the kingdom of heaven 1 Let it 
be remembered, too, that Paul preached among the Gentiles, particularly among the Greeks and 
Romans. He could not have been ignorant of the condition of the slaves among the latter. He 
must have seen the ergastula in which slaves were confined, and the porter chained to the gate 
of his Roman master. Yet, instead of denouncing the toleration of slavery as a crime, he and 
Peter both exhort servants to be "obedient to their masters, with fear and trembling," "to 
please them in all things, not answering again," &c. &c. The practice of St. Paul, on this 
subject, corresponded with his precepts. The Epistle to Philemon is nothing more than an in- 
tercession in behalf of Onesimus, a fugitive slave, who had probably run away from his master, 
to listen to the eloquence of the apostle by whom he was converted. 



15 

as profanity in me to quote or use in a deliberative assembly like this, except 
as the oldest and most authentic history, I come to the next argument of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts. It was urged by him, as also by others who 
preceded him in debate, that we should recognise the right of Congress to abol- 
ish slavery in the District of Columbia, and its jurisdiction over the subject in 
a broader and more extended manner, under the Declaration of Independence 
of the United States. Do gentlemen forget that that eloquent recital of the 
wrongs and grievances of the colonies, which was drawn up by a Southerner, 
and sustained in council and in the battle-field by Southern men complains, 
"That lie [the British King] has excited domestic insurrection among us 1 " 
Do gentlemen lorget that, when the Revolution commenced, in eimmeraiing the 
causes which impelled the people of the colonies to abjure their allegiance to the 
King of Great Britain, he was expressly charged with '•'■ promjjiing our negroes to 
rise in arms against us — those very negroes whom, by an inhuman use of his neg- 
ative, he hath refused us permission to exclude by law?" Does the course pur- 
sued by the abolitionists difi'er widely from this now 1 But, whetlier slavery be a 
curse or not, the very authorities wliich gentlemen quote, and well-attested 
history, will show that we of the South are not to be reproached with its institu- 
tion or its continuance. Slavery was introduced into this country at a time when 
no scruples were entertained by any class of Christians upon the subject. Who 
were the participators in the traffic of slavery? Whose ships and wliose seamen 
were engaged in the slave trade? Or where is now enjoyed the wealth amassed 
and hoarded up from its successful prosecution ? The puritan of the North wns 
as much a party to the traffic as the planter of the South. From New England 
the slave ships were fitted out ; in New England the shackles were forged to bind 
the slaves; and if they were landed and sold at the South, it was only because 
there they could be employed to the best advantage. It was a misfortune that 
their clin)ate h;jd permitted the evil to take deep root ; while at the North it had 
been stayed in its growth, not by the superior virtue of the people, but by their sa- 
gacious attention to their own interests. They found that slavery would be a bur- 
den in their cold region, and shook it off upon their neighbor. Were gentlemen 
to consider these facts, were they to remember how slavery was introduced among 
us, were they to look about and see where the curse and denunciation would fall, 
instead of invoking the judgment of Heaven and declaiming about the laws of 
nature, before pronouncing sentence of condemnation on a high-minded and 
generous people for holding slaves, they would consider how they obtained them, 
and inquire whether they can now get clear of them without producing more evil 
than good. 

The next argument urged by the gentleman from Massachusetts was founded 
on that provision in the constitution which declares that Congress shall have pow- 
er " to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not 
exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the ac- 
ceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States." 
With becoming respect and great deference to the opinions of others, I say to the 
many learned gentlemen, distinguished statesmen, and able constitutional lawyers, 
who have admitted the right of Congress to legislate on the subject of slavery in 
the District of Columbia, that they have not, in my humble judgment, done them- 
selves or the question justice. Removed from the point of agitation and danger, 
they have seldom if ever exan)ined the whole question; they have read the clause 
in the constitution without considering other matters and circumstances which give 
to it interpretation and meaning ; they have thus formed a hasty opinion, and 
then brought their ingenuity and all their reasoning powers to sustain their first 
conceived impressions. In no other way can I account for what I believe to be 
their erroneous opinion and mistaken conclusions. I humbly conceive, Mr. 
Speaker, that a gentleman who occupies the high station of an American legislator 



16 

and statesman should, upon so important a question as this, translate his mind 
back to the history of the times of the formation of the constitution. He should 
take a philosophical view of the institutions of the country anterior to the consti- 
tution, and consider well the purposes which that instrument was intended to effect. 

I have already shown how slavery was introduced into this country, and that, 
from the character of the climate, its staple productions, and other causes, there 
were more slaves in the Southern than in the Northern colonies. The colonial trade 
was under the absolute dominion of the mother country ; and many of the South- 
ern colonies not only endeavored to discourage the importation of slaves, by vari- 
ous duties imposed at dift'erent times upon their purchase, but petitioned the Throne 
to remove those restraints of the Governors which inhibited their assent to such laws 
as might check so very pernicious a commerce. Such was the state of things 
from the declaration of independence, in 1776, to 1781, when the several State 
Legislatures made an act of federation, as allied sovereigns. Look into thai com- 
pact, those original articles of confederation, and you will nowhere find power over 
the question of slavery given to tlie confederate Government. 

But the confederation under which the States had leagued for common defence, 
at all times feeble, became ever}^ day weaker from the influence of sectional 
jealousies and the rivalship of power, and it is a fact of curious interest that the 
convention which formed the present constitution assembled simply to revise, in 
a few important particulars, the articles of confederation. The conflict between 
Maryland and Virginia, in relation to the navigation of the Potomac river, gave 
the first impulse to a revision of the original confederation, and I trust that the 
conflict on its banks, in this Capitol, will not destroy the present Government. 
In 1786, there was a convention of delegates at Annapolis, the result of whose 
deliberations was a recommendation to the several States to send delegates to a 
grand convention in Philadelphia, for the pur[)ose of rendering the constitution 
of the Federal Government " adequate to the exigencies of the Union." This 
grand convention did meet in 1787, and proposed the constitution which, by 
the acceptance and confirmation of the people of the several States, in their own 
time and manner, gave life and being to this Republic. In the letter which was 
addressed to Congress by the convention, we find son)e of the causes which em- 
barrassed the action of the convention, and, indeed, delayed the adoption and 
ratification of the constitution, by some of the States, for a long time. " It is at 
all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which nmst 
be surrendered and those which may be reserved ; and on the present occasion, 
this difficulty was increased by a difference of opinion among the several States, 
as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests. And thus the con- 
stitution which we present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual def- 
erence and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indis- 
pensable." Thus we see that, while all felt that an efficient national Government 
was necessary, it was admitted that this could only be obtained at an immense 
sacrifice. Compromise was to lie at the foundation of any Government at all — 
concession, free, voluntary, and ample, was required on every side, or no integral 
Government could be established out of separate and independent sovereignties 
of antagonist opinions, customs, and interests. But with all these difficulties press- 
ino- upon them, what was the result of the deliberations of the convention 1 
Looking into the constitution, we find that " no State shall enter into any treaty, 
alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal ; coin money; 
emit bills of credit ; make any tiling but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of 
debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obliga- 
tion of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." That " no State shall, without 
the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, ex- 
cept what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws ; and 
the nett produce of all duties and imposts laid by any Slate on imports or exports, 



17 

shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States ; and all such laws shall 
be subject to the revision and control of the Congress." And that " no State shall, 
without the consent of Congress, lay any duly of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of 
war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, 
or with a foreign Power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such 
imminent danger as will not admit of delay." While to the Congress of the 
General Government was given, among other powers, the high power " to lay and 
collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises; to pay the debts and provide for the com- 
mon defence and general welfare of the United States ; to borrow money on the 
credit of the United States ; to regulate commerce wiih foreign nations, and 
among the several States, and with the Indian tribes ; to establish uniform laws 
of naturalization, and bankruptcies ; to coin money, regulate the value thereof, 
and of foreign coin ; fix the standard of weights and nieasures ; to punish coun- 
terfeiting, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas ; to establish post 
offices and post roads ; to declare war, grant letters of marcjue and reprisal ; raise 
and support armies; provide and maintain a navy ; to make rules and articles of 
war; to call out, organize, and govern the militia; exercise exclusive legislation 
over the seat of Government, and over forts, arsenals, and dock-yards; to assent 
to the formation of new Stales ; to dispose of and make rules concerning the ter- 
ritory or other property belonging to the United States, and to make all laws ne- 
cessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other 
powers vested by the constitution in the Government of the United States, or in 
any department or officer thereof." It will also be found that the constitution 
declares, that " representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the 
several States, which may be included within this Union, according to their re- 
spective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of 
free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding 
Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons;" that "the actual enumera- 
tion shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the 
United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as 
they shall by law direct ;" that "no capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, 
unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be 
taken ;" that " all debts contracted, and engagements entered into, before the 
adoption of the constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under the 
constitution, as under the confederation;" that "the migration or importation of 
such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not 
be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be im- 
posed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person ;" that " no 
person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into 
another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged 
from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to 
whom such service or labor may be due." Thus in the enumeration of these 
several powers, restrictions, and concessions, we see what were the sacrifices and 
concessions made by the people of the individual States, " in order to form a 
more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the 
common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty 
to themselves and their posterity." 

The constitution giving an increased representation to the white population of 
the slaveholding States, was considered to compensate this inequality, by shifting, 
in part, the burden of direct taxation from the North to the South. The con- 
stitution recognising slavery, and providing for its continuance, guarantying the 
vested rights in the owner, and providing for the recapture of fugitive slaves, was 
entered into deliberately by the non-slaveholders, as a contract upon what were 
deemed good considerations. Among these considerations, were the advantages 
growing out of commerce, and especially the coasting trade, for American vessels. 
2 



Experience had already proven how inadequate had been the articles of confedera- 
ation to quell the discontents and conflicts about commercial advantages ; and never 
was it to be expected tiiai thirteen distinct and separate Governments, viewing 
commerce under different relations, would be brought to concede to each other 
the peculiar advantages whicii they possessed from climate, soil, or the nature of 
their productions. How great were the commercial advantages which the North 
expected to realize, and which they have, in fact, realized, by the adoption of the 
constitution, will, in some degree, appear when we consider that the product of 
slave labor forms the staple of the commerce of the world. " Let it be traced,'* 
says an eloquent writer, who has ably vindicated the South from some of the as- 
persions of Norlhorn rant and fanaticism, " let it be traced through all its ramifi- 
cations, in the shipping, navigating, commercial, and manufacturing concerns ot 
New England and New York ; in all the domestic and household arrangements in 
every domicil in the country; with every family where cotton is used, or sugar 
eaten; with every fortune that has been acquired by inheritanr.e or marriage ; and 
with the price of labor among the poorest members of the community, and it will 
be found that, under the contract of the constitution, a very large part of the profit 
of slave labor is gathered and possessed in the free States, while the ignominy and 
curse of the institution are thrown upon the States where that labor is performed." 
But, besides the advantages flowing from commerce, which the non-slaveholding 
States secured by the adoption of the constitution, let it be remembered that a gov- 
ernutent was created which has reimbursed them for their expenditures during the 
revolutionary struggle — whicli has paid millions for that purpose, besides the im- 
mense amount which has been paid by way of pension to the soldiers of the war 
of independence. Again, lot it be borne in mind that the slaveholding States, 
upon coming into the Union, voluntarily surrendered to the General Government, 
for the common use and benefit, millions of acres of valuable land, already the res- 
idence of millions of freemen, and destined to be the residence of countless millions 
more. 

Thus, sir, have I shown that, not only by the consent, but by the approbation, 
contract, and agreement of the North, slavery was not only recognised and secu- 
red by the constitution, but incorporated into the very political existence of the 
Government — incorporated in the representation on this floor — political power 
given to it, in the very election of the Executive, and, through him, into the elec- 
tion of all the military, civil, and other officers of the General Government ; for 
every officer of Government, before he can discharge any duty of his ofhce, is first 
bound to take an oath to support the institution of slavery as it exists, because he 
is bound to take an oath to support the constitution. It is incorporated, too, in 
the taxing power of Congress ; and Congress would violate the constitution, and 
its law would be a violation of a fundamental feature of the compact of the States, 
as written in the constitution, if it did not levy direct taxes upon the slaves of the 
States, as there provided. The slightest infraction of this fundamental article of 
^he constitution would absolve a State from all liability, and resolve it into its 
figinal unqualified sovereignty. 

But, Mr. Speaker, there is another view of the subject, upon which I will, at 
this lime, say a word : At the lime of the adoption of the constitution, slavery ex- 
isted in almost all the States. Vermont declared, in lier constitution of 1777, 
there should be no slavery within her limits. New Hampshire, Connecticut, and 
Rhode Island did the same in 1784. In Massachusetts, in the first action, involv- 
int^ the riffht of the master, which came- before the supreme judicial court, alier 
the establishment of the constitution, the judges declared that, by virtue of the first 
article of the declaration of rights, slavery in the State was no more. 

In New York, by an act for the gradual abolition of slavery, all children born 
of slaves subsequent to the 4th of July, 1779, were declared to be free, but to 
continue servants to the owners of their mothers — males till the age of 28, and 



19 

females till the age of 25 ; and, by an act of the 31st of March, 1817, every negro, 
mulatto, or mustee, within the State, born before the 4th of July, 1799, it was 
declared should, from and after the 4th of July, 1827, be free. 

In Pennsylvania, by the act for the gradual abolition of slavery, passed on the 
1st of March, 1780, every person who at the time was a slave was to remain a 
slave, unless his owner omitted to register him on or before the 1st day of No- 
vember then next ensuing. Children born after the passage of the act, were born 
free, subject, however, to a temporary servitude till the age of 28 ; and the issue 
of such children could not be held to any servitude. 

In New Jersey various laws have passed for the gradual abolition of slavery ; 
but, according to the census of 1830, there were, at that time, in the State no less 
than two thousand two hundred and forty-six slaves. 

Now, sir, at the time of the adoption of the constitution, did any member from 
the North move and carry any proposition in the convention authorizing Congress 
to abolish slavery within its territory, or within the limits of the influence of the 
constitution? Did Pennsylvania, New York, or any other Northern State, 
then or since, ever call on Congress to abolish slavery within its limits and 
jurisdiction 1 Slavery has been abolished — gradually abolished, mark ye — 
in nearly all the States north of Maryland, but was the power of Congress in- 
voked ? Did not the general voice of the people call on their Slate authorities? 
and was not abolition effected by the acts of their own State Legislatures 1 The 
whole legislation of the non-slaveholding States demonstrates that they regarded 
the question of slavery as one of State jurisdiction alone ; and every fact which I 
have given, goes far in illustration of that provision of the constitution which de- 
clares that " the powers noi delegated to the United States by the constitution, 
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to 
the people." 

But, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the legislation of each and every State in 
reference to the abolition of slavery shows that it has always been considered a 
question of State jurisdiction; notwiriistanding some of the abolitionists here and 
elsewhere disclaim all pretence of power in Congress to abolish slavery in the 
States, they yet contend that full^ ample, and absolute power is given to Congress 
over the question in this District, by the grant of power contained in the eiglitli 
section of the first article of the constitution. They have rung the changes upon 
the terms used in the clause referred to, and said much about the phrase "to exer- 
cise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District;" they have 
argued that this gave Congress am[)le, unlimited, absolute power of legislation over 
the question here. 1 shall answer some of these arguments presently ; but I would 
here say that there is one part which all the learned commentators seem entirely 
to have overlooked. They tell you that you have full and ample power to abolish 
slavery in the District of Columbia, and only ask you to exercise your authority 
where" you have jurisdiction. In this District there are about 6,000 slaves, and it 
cannot be that the energies of the whole body of abolitionists are directed to no other 
object than the emancipation of so small a portion of the slave population of the coun- 
try. No, sir. Walled around as are the rights of the slaveholder, the abolitionists 
have little hope to break through the constitutional barriers: their only hope is to 
steal in at some loop-hole ; and, with this view, they would persuade an assumption 
ofpoiver, under the plausible pretext that Congress has jurisdiction, because czc/«- 
sive legislation has been given to Congress in all cases whatsoever over this Dis- 
trict. I have gone into the history of the origin of slavery in this country, of its 
institution both before and under the constitution, of the legislation of the States 
upon the subject, in order to show that Congress can exercise no legitimate au= 
thority to abolish slavery in any of the States where it now exists, or where it ex= 
isted at the time of the adoption of the constitution. If this doctrine be true—if the 
abolitionists and their supporters here admit it—then must all their arguments fail, 



20 

which go to establish the power of Congress to abolish slavery in this District un- 
der the eighth section of tiie first article of the constitution; because, whatever 
power Congress can exercise over this District, they may exercise in any and 
every other part of this country, in any and every State in this Union : and to 
prove this, we have only to read the language of the constitution itself, when it 
declares that Congress shall have power " to exercise exclusive legislation, in all 
cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by 
cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of 
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all pla- 
ces purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same 
shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other 
needful buildings." 

Much has been said, Mr. Speaker, about the powers of Congress, as a local 
legislature, over this District ; but, sir, a territory over which Congress could ex- 
ercise separate and exclusive jurisdiction was not sought for the purpose of estab- 
lishing a Utopia or an oligarchy, but that Congress might have an established 
seat of Government independent alike of State influence and State favor — a seat 
of Government where they could exercise an exclusive jurisdiction in all matters 
of police for their personal protection. The proceedings of the old Congress 
show distinctly that such was the object ; and in fact the outrage which occurred 
at the close of the Revolution to awe the deliberations of Congress by threat and 
mutinous excitement, which proved how little protection could be expected from 
State authorities alone, no doubt contributed greatly to the introduction of the 
clause in the constitution which gives to Congress the exclusive legislation over 
the seat of Governn)Fnt. On the 7th of October, 1783, a resolution was passed 
providing " that buildings for the use of Congress be erected on or near the banks 
of the Delaware, provided a suitable district can be procured on or near the banks 
of the said river for a federal town, and that the right of soil, and exclusive or such 
other jurisdiction as Congre>:s may direct, shall be vested in the United States. 

On'the 21st of the same month, 1783, another resolution was passed, preceded 
by a preamble : 

" Whereas there is reason to expect that the providing buildings for the alternate residence ot 
Congress in two places will be productive of the most salutary effects, by securing the mutual 
confidence and affections of the States : 

"Resolved, That buildings be provided for the use of Congress at or near the lower falls of 
the Potomac or Georgetown^ provided a suitable district on the banks of the river can be pro- 
cured for a federal town, and the right of soil and an exclusive jurisdiction, or such other as 
Congress may direct, shall be vested in the United States." 

Such were the views entertained by the old Congress, such the considerations 
which influenced the Convention which framed the constitution, and such the un- 
derstanding of the people of the several States when they accepted, ratified, and 
confirmed the constitution. The jurisdiction was intended to be made so exclu- 
sive as to prevent conflict between federal and State authority in municipal laws 
and regulations, and to give to Congress all the power, and none other, which 
should be indispensably necessary for its own protection, and to render all the 
departments and officers of the Federal Government entirely independent of 
State authority. 

It must also be recollected that no place was designated in the constitution as 
the seat of Government ; the convention only thought it expedient to specify the 
limits and extent, and the character of the legislation, leaving its location to de- 
pend upon the cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress. It 
will also be recollected, that there was great rivalry among the States as to the 
point to be selected. 

The Journal of the old Congress will show that, from the 28th of July, 1788, 
up to 13th of September, 1788, the subject of determining with respect to the 
place for commencing proceedings under the new constitution was continually 



21 

under discussion, and gave rise to many motions and much debate , the relative 
advantages of New York, Hudson, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Lancaster, Balti- 
more, Annapolis, and other places being pressed with great zeal and earnestness. 
After Congress had assembled under the constitution, the bill for locating a dis- 
trict of territory, not exceeding ton miles square, on the Potomac, " between the 
mouths of the Eastern Branch and Conogocheague," which originated in the Sen- 
ate, passed that body by a vote of fourteen to twelve, and in the House was the 
subject of much discussion. Four distinct propositions were made in the shape of 
amendments, to change the seat of tiie Federal District, by motion to strike out 
" the Potomac," and insert some other place: 

1st. " To substitute the Delaware instead of Potomac" — ayes 22, noes 39. 

2d. " In the State of Pennsylvania, including Germantown" — ayes 22, noes 39. 

3d. "Between the Susquehannah and Potomac" — ayes 25, noes 36. 

4th. "State of Maryland, including Baltimore" — ayes 26, noes 34. 

Now, can any man of rational mind believe that the Representatives from 
Maryland would have voted in favor of establishing the seat of Government at 
Baltimore, or its Legislature would have oflered Annapolis for such a pur- 
pose, if they had, for a single instant, thought or believed that Congress would 
possess the power to abolish slavery in the very centre of the State 1 Can any 
rational mind believe that Maryland would have recognised or sanctioned such an 
interpretation, or allowed the General Government to hold its seat in the centre 
of the State, armed with such antagonist powers against her peace and interests 1 
I think it impossible to doubt a moment in saying that she never would. What can 
be the difference, whether the powers now claimed for Congress be exercised in 
the centre or on the borders of the State ? If the power of Congress to abolish 
slavery could not have been allowed at Baltimore, it cannot be at Washington. 
That part of the District north of the southern bank of the Potomac was as much 
a part of Maryland as Baltimore. If it cannot be inferred from any thing which 
occurred at the adoption of the constitution, as a cotemporaneous interpretation 
of that instrument, that it was admitted that Congress had the power to abolish 
slavery within the limits of any State in which it existed, who can resist the in- 
ference, or debate the conclusion, that the letter, the spirit, and philosophy of the 
constitution totally deny the assumption of such power by Congress? And no lapse 
of time can enlarge the powers of Congress without an alteration of the constitu- 
tion itself. There is nowhere in the constitution, any power given to Congress to 
abolish slavery; yet this power is attempted to be drawn from the constitution by 
implication. Gentlemen admit that Congress cannot intermeddle with the institu- 
tion of slavery in any portion of the Union where it existed at the time of the 
adoption of the constitution. It did exist, and does exist, in that portion of Mary- 
land and Virginia which became the seat of Government ; yet, in the absence of all 
expressed or implied power, they would have Congress alter the then and now ex- 
isting relations of master and slave. If it was intended to have given Congress 
the power, the Convention omitted to express it ; and, having failed so to express 
it, the omission denies the right of jurisdiction. 

Mr. Speaker, in considering these features of our constitution, I am forcibly 
struck with the analogy, which the whole instrument bears, in many respects, to 
the articles of union between England and Scotland, adopted by the Parliament 
of both those kingdoms in 1707. 

Article 3d declares — 

"The United Kingdom shall be represented by one ParHament." 

The 1st section of the 1st article of the constitution of the United States pro- 
vides — 

" That all legislative powers herein granted, shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, 
which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." 



22 

Article 4tli declares — 

" There shall he a communication of all rights ami privileges hetvveen the siihjects of b»th 

kingdoms, except when it is otherwise agreed." 

The 2cl section, 4th article of the constitution of the United States, provides — 
" The citizens of each State shall he entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the 

several States." 

Article 9lh declares — 

" When England raises £2,000,000 by a land tax, Scotland shall raise £48,000." 
Section 2d, article 1st of the constitution of the United States provides, that — 
"Representatives and direct faxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be 

included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by 

adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, 

and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.'" 

Article 18th declares — 

" The laws relating to trade, customs, and excises, shall be the same in Scotland as in Eng- 
land. But all the other laws of Scotland shall remain in force, but alterable by the Parliament 
of Great Britain ; yet, with those laws relating to public policy, arc alterable at the discretion of 
the Parliament, l^aws relating to private rights are not to be altered but for the evident utility 
of the people of Scotland." 

The 2d section of the 6th article of the constitution of the United States pro- 
vides, that — 

"This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall he made in pursuance there- 
of; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall 
he the supreme law of the land." 

Article 1st, section 8th oi' the constitution declares, that — 

"Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the sev- 
eral States, and with the Indian tribes." 

The 5th article of the amendments provides, that — 

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or pro|)erty, without due process of law ; nor 
shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." 

The 9th article provides, that — 

" The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or dis- 
parage others retained by the people." 

The 10th amendment declares — 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to 
the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." 

Article 22d of the Union states — 

" Sixteen peers are to be chosen to represent the peerage of Scotland in Parliament, and forty- 
five members to sit in the House of Commons." 

Section 3d, 1st article of the constitution declares, that — 

" The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State," <fec. 
Section 2d of the same article, as quoted, prescribes the representation in the 
House of Representatives. 

Upon these articles of union of England and Scotland, Sir William Blackstono 

remarks : 

"These are the principles of the twenty-live articles of union, which are ratified and confirm- 
ed by .'Sth Anne, chap. 8, in which statute there are also two acts of Parliament recited, the one 
of Scotland, whereby the Church of Scotland, and also the four universities of that kingdom, are 
established forever, and all succeeding sovereigns are to take an oath inviolably to maintain the 
same; the other of England, 5th Anne, chap. 6, whereby the acts of uniformity of 13th Eliza- 
beth and 13th Charles II. (except, as the same had been altered by Parliament at that time) 
and all others then in force, for the preservation of the Church of England, are declared perpet- 
ual ; and it is stipulated, that every subsequent King and Queen shall take an oath inviolably to 
maintain the same roithin England, Ireland, Wales, and the town of Berwick upon Tweed. 
And it is enacted that these two 'shall forever be observed ads fundamental and essential cm- 
ditionsofthe Union. ^^' 



23 

And he continues: 

" Upon these articles and acts of Union, it is to be observed, that the two kingdoms are now 
so inseparably united that nothing can ever disunite them again; unless, perhaps, an infringe^ 
ment of those points which, when they were separated and independent nations, it was mutually 
stipulated shall be ^^fundamental and essential conditions of the Union." 

Will not these remarks of the great commentator upon the constitution and laws 
of England apply with equal force to the constitution of the United States? If 
an infringement of the fundamental and essential conditions of Uniun would disu- 
nite two kingdoms, would not the same violation dissever these States 1 Sir, I 
repeat, that, at tlie adoption of our constitution, slavery not only existed, but was 
acknowledged, and, as a prominent and fundamental principle, was incorporated 
into the very fabric of the Government ; and any meddling with it now would be 
an infringement of " the essential conditions of the Union." But the institution 
of slavery, whether right or wrong, does not owe its existence or continuance to 
the constitution: it is above and independent; pre-existing and beyond that instru- 
ment, though sanctioned and guarantied by it. And 1 maintain that slavery, 
having pre-existed — having been recognised, adopted, and guarantied by the con- 
stitution — no afterthought of fanaticism or pretended humanity can, for specious 
purposes, seize upon the property of any citizen, whetl.er in a slave or non-slave- 
holding State ; nor can alter the then existing state of things, without violating the 
spirit and letter of the constitution ; without disregarding the solemn compact en- 
tered into by these States, and thereby jeoparding the integrity of the Union. 
Considering the question wholly by the constitution, and that instrument solely and 
strictly by its letter, will gentlemen contend that Congress has power to legislate in 
this matter exclusively over the Disttict? But, by the same instrument. Congress 
!s in part a representative of slaves. The constitution, recognising and provid- 
ing for the representation of slaves, requires, in the apportionment, that every five 
slaves shall be equal to three freemen. If the framers of the constitution had such 
horror of slavery as is affected at the iNorth now, why did they allow to it political 
importance, or even being, by representation on this floor? The answer is a plain 
one. In the tirst place, the constitution was a matter of concession and compro- 
mise to effect a perfect union; and, in the second place, to effect this union, the in- 
stitution of slavery was not only to be acknowledged as a fundamental and essen- 
tial principle, but to be guarantied and secured against all interference, by giving 
to it, as property, political power. By the constitution, then, slavery is recognis- 
ed and abolition is not. Will you be governed by the constitution, or will you 
assume powers not delegated, because a few self-righteous men to the North, 
thinking themselves wiser than their ancestors, fancy they can abolish such parts 
of the constitution as may not suit their present views or interests'? 

But, Mr. Speaker, the third section of the 6tli article of the constitution declares 
that " the Senators and Representatives," (of the Congress of the United States,) 
"and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all ExoGutive and Judi- 
cial officers, both of the United Slates, and of the several States, shall be bound 
by an oath or affirmation to support this constitution." With, then, the existing 
provisions of the constitution ; with slavery recognised, guarantied, incorporated 
into that instrument, how can gentlemen reconcile it to themselves to vote for the 
abolition of an institution which they have sworn to support? How can they con- 
sole themselves while advocating abolition petitions, which would have them vio- 
late their solemn oath of office? Do the abolitionists require the members of this 
House to have easy and pliant consciences, to be moulded according to the preju- 
dices or caprices of fanaticism ? Under this constitutional requirement of an oath 
of otTice, it matters not what may be the local legislation of the States, the rights 
of the slaveholder are guarantied most amply and most fully ; and this doctrine has 
been recognised by the most solemn decisions of the highest courts in several of 
the non-slaveholding States, particularly Pennsvlvania, New York, and Massa- 



24 

chusetls. These decisions, to the high credit of the judiciary, show that the con- 
stitution is beyond the reach of local prejudice on sectional views of policy. I 
have not time to cite many of the cases alluded to; but I beg the indulgence of 
the House to read from one whicli, in 1835, came before the court of errors of 
New York — a court constituted of the President of the Senate, Chancellor of State, 
Jndgesof the Supremo Court and all the Senators, wherein the Chancellor declared: 

"If the person whose services are claimed is in fact a fugitive from servitude, under the laws 
of another State, the constitutional provision is imperative that he shall be delivered up to his 
master upon claim made ; and any State officer or private citizen who owes allegiance te the 
United States, and has taken the usual oath to support the constitution thereof, cannot, without 
incurring the moral guilt of purjury, do any act to deprive the master of his right of recapture, 
when there is no doubt that the person whose services are claimed is in fact the slave of the 
claimant. However much, therefore, we may deplore the existence of slavery in any part of the 
Union, as a national as well as local evil, yet, as the right of the master to reclaim his fugitive 
slave is secured to him by the federal constitution, no good citizen, whose liberty and property 
are protected by that constitution, will interfere to prevent this provision from being carried into 
effect according to its spirit and letter; and even when the forms of law are resorted to for the 
purpose of evading the constitutional provision, or to delay the remedy of the master in obtaining 
a return of his fugitive slave, it is undoubtedly the right, and may become the duty, of the court 
in which any proceedings for that purpose are instituted, to set them aside, if they arc not com- 
menced and carried on in good faith and upon probable grounds of believing that the claim of 
the master to the services of the supposed slave is invaded." 

Mr. Speaker, an impartial interpreter of the constitution will not mark the par- 
ticular passage which alludes to the ten miles square ; but he will look at the whole 
instrument and e.xamine each part in relation to the whole — he is bound to make 
them harmonize if they will agree. Can a construction be given to that part which re- 
lates to the ten miles square which shall empower Congress to abolish slavery, with- 
out overthrowing and obliterating that part which recognises slavery, which provides 
for its representation and ta.xation under certain circumstances, or which prohibits 
Congress from interfering with private property, and secures its recapture, if \i 
should flee from the owner in the District of Columbia? What novice in law, or 
who is so little skilled in the interpretation of contracts, but will say that you must 
make all parts of an instrument agree if it be possible ; or, if the various parts 
conflict, the intention is to be come at by the |)lain and obvious meaning of the 
writing? The construction which the gentlemen give who advocate the cause of 
the abolitionists would blot out every part which recognises, provides for, or guar- 
anties the existence of slavery, and, by doing so, would change the whole repre- 
sentation in Congress and vary the apportionment of direct ta.xation. Again, sir: 
How can you reconcile the power of Congress to abolish slavery with the prohib- 
ition not lo interfere with private property ? for slaves, not only by the laws of 
the Slates, but under the constitution itself, are recognised as property. The doc- 
trine of the abolitionists superadds difficulty to difficulty, while in a fair and just 
interpretation of the constitution all its parts will stand perfect, and have full scope 
and influence. • 

I have already shown, from concurring circumstances and the plain reading of 
the legislation at the time, what was contemplated by the framers of the constitu- 
tion, in requiring a certain extent of territory to be established as the scat of Gov- 
ernment for the United States. They desired a distinct and separate place, not 
for the purpose of remodelling society, but to keep it as it was — where there should 
be no fear of civil commotions — no popular threatening of the deliberations — no 
interruption of their proceedings, and no other control or legislation to govern 
their officers, servants, or agents. There are in this District, even now, thousands 
employed by the Government — officers,. public agents, clerks, and laborers upon 
the public buildings. Had Maryland or Virginia jurisdiction, the whole business 
of the Government might be stopped or delayed at the pleasure of either. Owing 
allegiance to the State, every man might be called away to serve on juries or to 
perform militia duty ; as it is, exclusive legislation belonging to Congress, our 



25 

legislation can control the action of all persons employed by the Government 
I admit, sir, that the seat of Government might have been established upon the 
public domain ; and slavery, to a certain extent, might have been prohibited where 
it did not previously exist ; but to abolish it where it had existed is very different. 
Congress was content to select a place where slavery did exist, and it was not 
then pretended that slavery was either a moral, social, or political evil. If they 
thought so they did not express the opinion, nor had they the right so to express 
themselves, or to act upon such conviction. Experience has shown that, by the 
existence of slavery in this District, neither the legislation of Congress nor the op- 
erations of the Government have been impeded. It has shown, that slavery could 
exist in the ceded territory, and that that provision which made slaves taxable 
property could be carried into effect. 



But, sir, there is another view of this subject which has been slightly alluded 
to, but which, 1 think, has not been sufficiently enforced. Granting that there 
was nothing implied or secured by the silence on the question of slavery at the 
adoption of the constitution, did Congress take, or could this Government have 
taken, this District without certain limitations and reservations? I maintain that 
Congress neither did, nor could. Slavery existed here : the right to regulate or abol- 
ish it belonged to Maryland or Virginia, within the limits of their respective jurisdic- 
tions; and the question was settled by the adoption of the constitution. While Mary- 
land and Virginia held jurisdiction, slavery might have been abolished by acts of 
legislation, operating over all parts of each State respectively ; but neither State 
could, by partial legislation, have abolished slavery in any particular section or 
district of its territory ; nor could they, by a cession of jurisdiction to any other 
authority, have impaired or put in jeopardy the rights secured to the citizens 
of each State, not only by the constitution of each respective State, but by the 
constitution of tlie United States. But, waiving all these considerations, did the 
States of Maryland and Virginia give up a portion of their territory to the un- 
limited and absolute jurisdiction of Congress? Read the acts of cession and you 
will find they did not. They were willing to cede a portion of their territory ; but, 
not resting the rights of the citizens of such ceded territory on the provisions of 
the constitution alone, by express reservations in their articles of cession, they de- 
nied the power to Congress to interfere with the right of property. 

The act of cession from the State of Virginia declares — 

"That a tract of country, not exceeding ten miles square, or any lesser quantity, to be located 
within the limits of this State, and in any part thereof as Congress may by law direct, shall 
be, and the same is hereby, forever ceded and relinquished to the Congress and Government of 
the United States, in full and absolute right, and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as of per- 
sons residing or to reside thereon, pursuant to the tenor and eflect of the eighth section of the first 
article of the constitution of the Government of the United States: Provided, That nothing 
herein contained shall be construed to vest in the United States any right of property in the soil, 
or to affect the rights of individuals therein, otherwise than the same shall or may be transferred 
by such individuals to the United States." 

The act of cession from the State of Maryland declares — 

"That all that part of the said territory called Columbia, which lies within the limits of this 
State, shall be, and the same is hereby, acknowledged to be forever ceded and relinquished to the 
Congress and Government of the United States, in full and absolute right, and exclusive juris- 
diction, as well of soil as of persons residing or to reside thereon, pursuant to the tenor and effect 
of the eighth section of the first article of the constitution of the Government of the United 
States: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be so construed to vest in the United 
States any right of property in the soil, or to affect the rights of individuals therein, otherwise 
than the same shall or may be transferred by such individuals to the United States: And pro- 
vided, also. That the jurisdiction of the laws of this State, over the persons and property of in- 
dividuals residing within the limits of the cession aforesaid, shall not cease or determine until 
Congress shall, by law, provide for the government thereof, under their jurisdiction, in manner 
provided by the article of the constitution before recited. 

Such are the articles of cession. Now let it also be borne in mind, that the 
seat of Government could not have been established, nay, Congress could not 



26 

even have assembled in any State where slavery existed, without the consent and 
sanction of that State; and these articles of cession must be regarded, not onl}' as 
limitations upon the powers of Congress, but as compacts and treaties between 
high contracting parties.* These articles of cession are, in fact, paramount to the 
constitution, in this, that the constitution could not have gone into efiecl here 
without them. The aiticles of cession were n)ade under the sanction of the con- 
stitution by three high sovereign parties — sovernign and independent wiihin their 
respective spheres, and qualified and competent to enter into compact. These 
parties were Maryland, Virginia, and the General Government. Now, sir, for 
nearly forty years the General Government has existed here, and slavery has 
existed here ; the local law wliich g.overns here, with but slight variation, is the 
la ^ .which existed here before the constitution was formed ; — the rights which that 
law gave, and the obligations whicii it was intended to enforce, were recognised 
and declared to be in force before the Government was established here, and 
have been continued ever since. No intimation has ever been made that the ex- 
istence of slavery here has produced the slightest inconvenience or danger to any 
department of the Government; but, on the contrar}', so convenient have the 
services and labor of slaves been found, that, by act of Congress, the owners of 
slaves resident in Maryland and Virginia have been authorized to hire them here ; 
and, by another act of Congress, passed 24th June, 1812, as if to give increased 
value and security to such kind of property, it is expressly declared : 

" That hereafter it shall be lawful for any inhabitant or inhabitants in either of said counties, 
owning and possessing any slave or slaves therein, to remove the same Irom one county into the 
other, and to exercise freely and fully all the rights of property in and over the said slave or 
slaves therein, which would be exercised over him, her, or them, in the county from whence 
the removal was made, any thing in any legislative act in force at this time, in either of the said 
counties, to the contrary notwithstanding." 

Yet, after all this, a new reading is to be given to the constitution, and new 
powers are to be exercised by Congress. Will Congress assume power by im- 
plication 1 Will you say that the clause of the constitution giving power to legis- 
late exclusively over these ten miles square, allows Congress to establish a des- 
potism here, to trample on the rights of the citizens of this District, and to estab- 
lish here a citadel of abolition, from which jiredatory incursions may be made 
upon the institutions of neighboring Stales ; that by this means you may inter- 
fere with the rights of projjerty not only here, but with those existing in the close 
contiguity of Maryland and Virginia? Nay, more; that, by so doing, yon 
jeopard the peace and security of the people here and in those Stales, and yet 
that Maryland and Virginia have no right to complain and denounce such legisla- 
tion as a usurpation and a violation of the compact, both expressed and iniplied ? 
Have not Maryland and Virginia the same right to construe by implication what 
they surrendered, or what they did not surrender, as you have? Then, to avoid 
all collision, is it not the duty of Congress to refrain from all attempts to assume 
powers not expressly delegated ? And is not any attempt on the part ol Congress 
to exercise a power not delegated, a usurpation and a direct infraction of the con- 
stitution? If, sir. Congress has not been invested by the constitution, nor by the 
articles of cession, with the power now pretended to, of abolishing slavery in the 
District of Columbia, it is the bounden duty of Maryland and V'irginia to interfere, 
should the Federal Government ever attempt to exercise such power. Every State 
in the Union would be called upon to protect the constitution from infraction, but it 
would be the especial duty of Maryland and Virginia to sv.c that the rights of their 
children's children should not be invaded. Already has the voice of Maryland been 
raised upon this question; she has declared, with almost unprecedented unanimi- 

• "The operation of the constitution must, of necessity, be like that of a treaty of cession 
by a foreign State to the United Slates. The act or deed of cession is the title fo power or prop- 
erty according to its terms, operating by way of grant or treaty, compact or contract." — Bald- 
will's Constitutional Vieivs, p. 83. 



27 

ty, that you have no jurisdiction over the subject of slavery ; that she never in- 
tended to give you such jurisdiction, and that if you attempt to exercise such 
powers it will be a violation of tlie compact; that the conipact will become a 
dead letter ; and thai she will reassume her original jurisdiction over all that part 
of the ten miles square which lies north of the southern bank of the Potomac. 

In the session of the General Assembly of Maryland, 1837, Mr. Joseph S. 
Cottman, a gentleman of ability, submitted, in his place in the Senate, the follow- 
ing resolutions, an account of which he has furnished since: 

" By thk Senate, February 18, 18.37. 

" Whereas, a communication from the Executive of this Slate was yesterday received, en- 
closing certain resolutions passed by the General Assembly of Vermont, and transmitted by the 
Governor of said State to his Excellency the Governor of this State, with a request that the 
same be laid before the Legislature, which resolutions are in the following words, viz : 

" Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, That neither Congress nor 
the State Governments have any constitutional right to abridge the free expression of opinions, 
or the transmission of them through the public mail. 

" Resolved, That Congress do possess the power to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the 
District of Columbia. 

" Resolved, Thai his Excellency the Governor, be requested to transmit copies of the fore- 
going resolutions to the Executive of each of the States, and lo each of our Senators and Rep- 
resentatives in Congress. 

"And whereas respect and courtesy are due to o// communications from the Executive of 
Maryland: Therefore, 

"'Resolved by the General Assembly of Maryland, That neither Congress nor the State 
Governments have any constitutional right to indulge in the "expression of opinions, or the 
transmission of them through the pulijic mail," so as to endanger the union of these United 
States, or to infringe the lights of individuals, or to interfere with the domestic institutions of 
any of the States of this Union. 

" Resolved, That Congress does not possess the power to abolish slavery in the District of 
Columbia; and, in the opinion of this Legislature, the abolition of slavery in said District by 
Congress, would be a violation of the terms and conditions upon which the cession of the District 
of Columbia was made to the Federal Government ; and, in the event of such violation, the 
territory included in said District, ought, and of right will, revert respectively to the States of 
Virginia and Maryland. 

"Resolved, Thai his Excellency the Governor be requested to transmit copies of the fore- 
going resolutions to the Executive of each of the States, and to each of our Senators and Rep- 
resentatives in Congress. 

" For the above resolutions, Mr. Bowie oficred the following as a substitute, which was read 
and negatived. 

" Resolved by the General Assembly of Maryland, That the communication from the Gov- 
ernor of Vermont, covering certain resolutions of that Slate, in relation to the power of Con- 
gress over the rights of slaveholders in the District of Columbia, and the transmission of incen- 
diary proceedings through the mail, be not received, the same being an oflensive interference 
Willi the domestic relations and private property of citizens, over whom the Legislature of Ver- 
mont has no control. And that his Excellency the Governor of Maryland be requested to re- 
turn the same to the Executive of Vermont." — Maryland Senate Journal, session 1836, p. 176. 

"On the 20lh of February, the resolutions were again taken up, and the following amendments 
were, on motion of Mr. Buown, assented to. 

" Strike out the words ' so as,' 5th line 1st resolution, and insert the word * calculated. ' 

" After the word 'be,' 4th line 2d resolution, strike out the letter 'a,' and insert 'contrary 
to the understanding and intention of uU the high contracting parties, if not in.' 

" Same resolution, 9lh line, after the word ' ought,' strike out the word ' and,' and in the same 
line strike out the word ' will' and insert the word ' to.' 

"The following amendment, on motion of Mr. Bowik, was assented to: 

'•Strike out in the second resolution all after the word 'Government,' 7th line, to the end of 
the resolution.' — Ibid, p. 183. 

"On the question of engrossing for a third reading, the lirsl was passed 7ie}n. con. ,■ and the 
2d was ordered to be engrossed, with one (Mr. Tidkall) in the negative. Mr. Tidball, who 
was unwilling to assert that Congress had not the power to abolish slavery in the District of 
Columbia, made a motion expressing his views, which was negatived without a division. 

" The preamble and resolutions were then read the third time, by special order, and assented to — 
(lb. p. 184,) and were sent to the House of Delegates. — p. 185. 

"'J'hese resolutions were received by the House of Delegates while the new constitution was 
under discussion, and were never, in consequence, acted on. — House .Tournal, session 1836, 
p. 356." 



28 

Such are the opinions, and such the declared intentions, of one of the high 
contracting parties, and such will be her course, whenever a majority in Congress 
shall be so reckless as to violate the rights of property in this District. But the 
General Assembly of Maryland did not stop here : at the same session, they had 
under consideration an alteration of the constitution of the State; and as, at this 
very time, the abolitionists were trying to effect a servile revolution in the South, 
by insidiously circulating their inflammator}' tracts and addresses, the Legislature 
deemed it expedient to engraft a new provision upon the organic law, to the fol- 
lowing efHect : 

" That the relation of master and slave in this State shall not be abolished, unless a bill so 
to abolish the same shall be passed by a unanimous vote of the members of each branch of the 
General Assembly, and shall be published at least three months before a new election of Dele- 
gates, and shall be confirmed by a unanimous vote of the members of each branch of the Gen- 
eral Assembly, at the next regular constitutional session, after such new election ; nor then, 
without full compensation to the master for the property of which he shall be thereby deprived." 

Such are the opinions of the people of Maryland, and such the safe-guards 
which they have thrown around their property. Such, too, are the fruits oi abo- 
lition excitement. It has forced Maryland to stand firm upon her rights ; to re- 
strict the former privileges of her colored population by n)ore rigid laws. The 
abolitionists have prolonged the lime of abolition of slavery in Maryland at least 
a century beyond the period at which it might otherwise gradually and quietly 
have terminated. They have placed it beyond the reach of legislation, or what, 
from the restriction, is equivalent ; for the clause in the State constitution which I 
have quoted never will be altered. The abolitionists have forged tighter the 
bonds of slavery, and have compelled the people of Maryland to tie them up as 
with a gordian knot, which the sword of no Alexander can cut in twain. Yet, sir, 
no State, not even the loudest and noisiest about abolition, has done so much as 
Maryland towards emancipation and the amelioration of the condition of the 
African race. Her early statutes protected them from any possible inhuman 
treatment, and authorized their manumission. And at a later period, with munifi- 
cent liberality, she has founded a colony in Africa, at the expense of some two 
hundred thousand dollars of her people's money. She has done all this with lim- 
ited means — with no parade or ostentation of humanity; and her whole people 
have approved the legislation. With these evidences of the sentiments of the 
people of Maryland, will any one doubt their unanimity in defence of their rights, 
and the rights of that portion of the territory which she conditionally surrendered 
to the General Government? It is true that the delegation of Maryland on this 
floor, have not been as vehement as the Representatives of States further South; 
and hence, from this forbearance, gentlemen have often, in debate, on former 
occasions, and two or three members have during this discussion, alluded to the 
Potomac river as a divisional line, should the abolitionists so grow in strength as 
to require and force a dissolution of the Union. Let me iell those members, and 
all who think with them, that the courage of Maryland has always been true when 
required, although she boasts but seldom about it. She has felt the danger of her 
position too anxiously to vapour. She knows 

" When valor preys on reason, 

It eats the sword it fights with." 

Those removed afar i^om danger, may display their theoretical prowess with- 
out the possibility of its being called into requisition ; and, perhaps, if the danger 
were greater or nearer, their courage might be less. Those who are in the front 
rank will not flourish their hats or their sabres in the air in vain-boastings; those 
in the rear may, when they know the strong columns in front shield them from 
harm. The steady gaze of the eye of the former, which reads the adversary's 
intent, the calm judgment of the mind, which teaches the arm to aim the blow 
aright, and the suppressed voice betoken the courage of those whom it were fear- 
ful to meet in hostile conflict. Let me tell gentlemen from the South, who de- 



29 



s.gnate the Potomac as a dividing line, that if aggression upon Maryland comes 
Irom the bouth, then are they correct; for then will she meet them on her Southl 
ern border, and then will the bright waters of the beautiful " river of swans" be 
crimsoned with the deepest die ; then on its banks will be the death fight and its 
agony But let me tell gentlemen from the South and from the North that if 
the rights of Maryland are attempted to be invaded from the North, Maryland 
will be ready to meet it on its farthest border, and her citizens will form a Chinese 
vvall on Mason and Dixon's line with their bodies, and when the last man falls 
the barncade of their bodies will be a rampart behind which those further South 
may hght with full protection and security. But I will dismiss from my mind 
such imagmmgs, which are more speculative than possible ; for I trust such a 
time will never come, and I am no alarmist to hnsten it by imaginary apprehen- 
sions. Maryland is the heart of the Union, and I hope she will ever remain so. 

Mr. Speaker, having shown that Congress has no power to interfere with the 
question of slavery or the slave trade between any of the States, Territories or 
Districts of the United States, in which it existed at the time of the adoption of 
the constitution, I might rest my argument here, with the conclusion, from the 
foregoing premises, that the people of the United States have no right to petition 
Congress on the subject, for it has been conceded on all sides of the House that 
we should not entertain petitions on any question over which this House has no 
jurisdiction ; but as the question of the right of petition has been elaborated with 
great ability by many gentlemen who have spoken on both sides of the question 
1 will trespass a little while longer, in order to present one or two views of the' 
question which have been omitted by the able gentlemen who have preceded me 
Ihere is no gentleman on this floor who can hold the right of petition in greater 
respect than the individual who has the honor to address you; no one who would 
go further than myself to protect it in its just and legitimate exercise. It is one 
of those solemn and valuable rights, which, to be useful, valuable, and sacred, must 
be under wise and proper restraints. What right that is sacred to the people and 
essential to liberty, that has not its restraints? The freedom of debate is as 
sacred and as essential to liberty as the right of petition ; yet, is not debate in 
this temple of liberty, this hall of freedom, checked, restrained, and justly so, for 
legitimate purposes 1 The " freedom of speech" is another sacred constitutional 
right, but It has its restraints, and he who abuses that sacred privilege is amen- 
able to the law. The " freedom of the press" is as essential to liberty, and 
more so, than the right to petition ; yet it is restrained from licentiousness. Liberty 
Itself IS synonymous with law, and its truest definition is " the right to do every 
thing which the law does not forbid." Every right reserved to the people carries 
restrictions upon its exercise, and every delegated power to government itself has 
a limitation upon its use. Every human power, individual, social, moral, or po- 
litical, has limitations upon its exercise. I care not how broad the grant, how 
clear tiie title, how ample the guarantee, limitation is essential to its enjoyment. 
1 cause enjoyment, you must preserve harmony ; that society may exist, you 
must lay it under restraints. The laws of society give an individual the right 
to acquire, possess, and enjoy property ; but will it be contended that, because 
ii may suit his pleasure or his fancy to beautify his estate by hanging lamps and 
lights on the trees on his beach, which decoy and deceive the mariner by night, 
his lamps cannot be abated, and he himself punished for what to him was' 
innocent pleasure, but the cause of death to others? A man may burn down his 
own dwelling, if he inflicts no injury upon others, and he will only be considered 
a madman ; but should he injure the property of others, he will be held responsible 
for the mischief, and be punished accordingly. But gentlemen go further than 
this, in the consequences growing out of the doctrine which they advocate. The 
effect of their reasoning amounts to this, that a man may burn down his neigh- 
bor's house, if its construction offend his taste or hig rules of architecture ; if the 






30 

sight annoys him, he can with impunity set it in flames. Gentlemen defend the 
right of abolitionists to petition ; they debate and protect them in the right ; they 
present tlieir memorials and send abroad their exciting speeches ; they appeal to 
the laws of nature and the laws of God, to fire the zeal and enlist ihe declama- 
tion of the professors of religion ; they sow broadcast the seeds of disquietude and 
strife ; they aid in lighting the wild-fire of civil servile war ; they encourage the 
delusions of fanaticism; and, after lending their talents and influence to do all this, 
the}' tell us to keep cool, the}' are only defending the right of petition. Sir, 
what is it but, under the pretext of defending tlie right of petition, asking us to 
permit the abolitionists to seize our property, to set fire to our houses, with the 
vain and empty promise that if we do, they will aid us to recover the one and 
to extinguish the other'? Gentlemen do not anticipate the evils which we know 
impend ; they will not believe that we know our interests and our danger better 
than they who are removed from it. Once let loose the wild fires of civil and 
servile war, and they will have no power or ability to aid us ; our only safety is 
in the total exclusion of the danger. If, sir, it were written in the constitution, 
that the people had the right to petition on this subject, 1 would still advocate a 
rejection of their petitions unless those petitions contained the sentiments 
of a majority of the people of the North. Then I would receive them 
once, and that once only to advocate a dissolution of the Union ; for 1 would re- 
gard a dissolution of the Union as nothing in comparison with the blood and car- 
nage of a civil servile war. 1 would reject the petitions, because where the ex- 
ercise of our power would annihilate and destroy all the other powers of the con- 
stitution, I should feel it a duty so to do, which I should owe to my country. 
Sworn to support the constitution, I would do so by rejecting or refusing to re- 
ceive memorials calculated to bring about a dissolution of the Union, and the 
overthrow of the Government. If an institution is worthy of being preserved, 
and it contains within itself a clause of sell-destruction, I would neglect to ob- 
serve that clause, and especially when that clause was speculative, theoretical, 
and made dangerous when made operative — when the exercise of the right 
would even embarrass much more when it would be the means ot over- 
throwing the Government. But I need not rest my objections to the reception 
of abolition petitions upon this consideration. I would here say a few words to 
those gentlemen who dwell with so much earnestness upon t!ie unlimited right of 
the people to petition, and upon its being the foundation of our national liberty 
and independence. We have been told that it is a sacred right, not only guar- 
antied by the constitution, but inherent and indefeisible in the people as the 
birthright and heritage of freemen. Let me tell those gentlemen that they are 
under a delusion, and have not advanced with the age and times in which they 
Jive, if they suppose that the only tenure of nur liberties depends upon the right 
to petition upon all questions, whether salutary or mischievous, constitutional or 
unlawful. In this enlightened age, no man, whatever may be his talents and his 
reputation, can make himself famous like a Sydney or a Hampden, and be cher- 
ished a'S a benefactor and a martyr, for defending abolition memorials on this floor. 
In this land of constitutional law, a man may gain notoriety by pressing his ad- 
vocacy to an extreme; but it will be a notoriety which his calmer reason will 
condemn, and his posterity will blush to acknowledge. In the feudal days of 
Europe, and especially of Engliuid, when the people were allowed but few rights, 
and for these had to acknowledge allegiance, do service, and fight for their kir.g 
and the bold barons — when all power was centered in the hands of a king and a 
few nobles — the right of petition was a boon, and its champion was a patriot. 
When, by slow degrees, intelligence developed the powers of the human intellect; 
when social rights called to their support political protection ; when the force of 
reason made written laws supersede the memory of customs; when the rights of 
property and the rights of persons became to be better understood, and more im- 



31 

partially enforced ; when military power yielded to civil government, the right of 
petition was regarded as a valuable right of the people, and finally triumphed over 
despotism. But the people did not rest their rights here alone. Step by step 
they advanced, till the elective franchise was secured which brought their will 
and voices to bear directly on the operations of their Government. 

The right of petition, even at this day, is more important to the people of Etig- 
gland than it is to the citizens of the United Stales, because in England the right 
to vote is still restricted to a privileged few, and hence the voice of a majority 
of the people of a borough, city, or a county, may be different from the voice of 
a majority of the electors ; and it may often occur that the member of Parliament 
elect may not he the true mirror to reflect faithfully all the features of the pop- 
ular will. 

Is liberty in this country held by so frail a right? Have the people to rescue 
their rights and power from the hands of an hereditary few 1 Or is not each man 
himself a part of the Government'? Trace the history of our people and their 
Governments from their first embarkation from England to the present hour, and 
what will it prove to you 1 They brought with them written charters and demo- 
cratic institutions. The charter of Maryland, for instance, given by an arbi- 
trary monarch, was more democratic in relation to popular representation than 
the constitution, now the organic law of that State. The people could legislate 
themselves, or by representation. What did the Revolution effect? The 4th 
of July tyro will say that it broke the bonds of slavery and made us free, and se- 
cured that freedom by the rii^ht to petition. That is an aspersion on our fore- 
fathers. They were always free. They brought with them the spirit of freedom, 
and each man had a constitution of rights and freedom written in his heart, deep- 
er and more revered than the parchment of their charters. The Revolution ef- 
fected a total separation, and produced constitutional and confederated govern- 
ment. The ballot-box was left as before, or extended to all- The ballot-box 

IS THE GREATEST CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE OF OUR LIBERTIES; every citizen 

finds that it is his safe-guard against oppression ; and in this country every free- 
man can speak through the ballot, and his voice and his will are felt and obeyed. 
It is the broad basis of our political fabric, and in its exercise the liberties of the 
people aie secure as long as they continue intelligent and virtuous. 

I could refer to various English statutes to show how far the right to petition 
has been restrained and enlarged, but it is unnecessary. But 1 will presently 
show that it is at this day, and has long been, the established rule in Parliament, 
to receive no petition when Parliament has not jurisdiction over the subject-mat- 
ter of the prayer; nor will it receive a petition on such questions and subjects as 
it may have jurisdiction, when, by the reception of the petition, it would delay 
and embarrass the public business of the nation. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts said that a member from South Carolina, 
(Mr. Lagare, I suppose,) in opposing, in a former session, the right of abolition- 
ists to petition, had alluded to English precedents, and he spent some lime in com- 
bating the position assumed by the able member from South Carolina. I have 
not on my memory very distinctly the grounds taken in that debate, but I have 
no hesitancy in saying that the conclusion of the gentleman from South Carolina 
was correct, whatever may have been his argument. 1 do not say it is so, but 
the gentleman, who is not hero to defend his position, may have been, on that oc- 
casion, like a learned English judge, who is described in the Lounger's Common 
Place Book, as being remarkable for the accuracy and soundness of his decisions, 
and the fallacy of the reasoning by which he reached them. 

The learned gentleman from Massachusetts has read from " Hatsell's Prece- 
dents." 1 will l?ke occasion to quote from the same high authority, and show 
that although " it is declared by the statute of William and Mary that the subject 
hath a right to pttition, and that all commitments and prosecutions for such pe- 



32 

titioning are illegal," yet that the House of Commons will not receive petitions 
when a bill is pending to raise revenue, and that in other instances they have 
summarily rejected petitions : 

" In the proceedings of the House of Commons, so late as the 29th of June, 1836, the sub- 
ject of petition was fully and elaborately debated. 

."Mr. Sergeant Jackson offered the petition of a certain Rev. Eugene Mulholland, praying 
that a law might be enacted to provide that the canon law of the Church of Rome be fairly 
observed, as between the several orders of the clergy of that church, and in so far as shall be com- 
patible with the laws of the country. 

"Mr. Wynn protested against the useless and most inconvenient practice of entertaining peti- 
tions with respect to which the House can neither investigate the alleged grounds of complaint, 
nor afford any practical relief It was a subject over which the Legislature could exercise no 
control. It was impossible for the House to receive such a petition. 

" Mr. Roebuck rose to a point of order: That the House could not recognise the canon law 
of Rome, and could take no means to compel others to abide by it. 

" Mr. Scarlett hoped that the House would hear the grievance of which the reverend gentle- 
man complained, as there was no doubt a grievance did exist, and the House was a proper place 
for taking such a petition into consideration. 

"The Speaker said : I have always understood that when an honorable member presented a 
petition to the House, he first made hinjself responsible to the House that it contained no im- 
proper language, or such as ought not to be addressed to the House of Commons; and, sec- 
ondly, that he was supposed to exercise a becoming discretion as to the possibility or propriety 
of Parliament granting any relief in the matter. I am sure I need not indicate to tlie House the 
great inconvenience which must result from honorable members pursuing a contrary practice, 
both in reference to the dignity of the proceedings of the House, and the progress of public 
business. 

" Mr. Sergeant Jackson said he had carefully perused the petition, and could confidently state 
that, from beginning to end, there did not occur one improper word or expression towards the 
House. It was altogether couched in the most respectful language. 

"The Attorney General said : I have looked at the prayer of the petition, and I think that the 
petition ought to be received. I am of opinion that no petition should be received which prays 
for that ivhich it is utterly impossible for the House to accede to. But such is not the fact in 
the present instance. The petitioner asks that the law may be altered; that the prayer is urged 
upon us only as one branch of the TiCgislature, who cannot pass a law without the approval of 
the Lords and the Crown. It would not be impossible to introduce a bill having for its object 
that which the petitioner prays for. If, however, a bill were proposed for the canon law of Rome 
being made the law of England, I apprehend there can be no doubt there would be an unanimous 
feeling amongst the representatives of the people against any such measure. I humbly beg to 
say, thai when a petition merely prays that the law may be altered, it should be received. 

"Mr. Roebuck added, after what had fallen from the honorable and learned gentleman, he was 
in error in opposing the reception of the petition, since it only prayed an alteration of the law ; 
therefore, as far as his objection went, he waived it. 

" Mr. Sergeant Jackson moved that the petition do lie on the table : which was ordered. — 
Mirror of Parliament, vol. 2, page 2136. 

"On the 9th April, 1694, a petition was tendered to the House, relating to the bill for grant- 
ing to their Majesties several duties upon the tonnage of ships, and the question being put. That 
the petition be received, it passed in the negative." — HatseWs Precedetits, vol. 3, p. 200. 

" On the 28th of April, 1698, a petition was offered to the House, against the bill for laying 
a duty upon inland pit coal, and the question being put, That the petition be received, it passed 
in the negative." — lb. p. 200. 

"On the 5th January, 1703, a petition of the maltsters of Nottingham being offered, against 
the bill for continuing the duties upon malt, and the question being put, That the petition be 
brought up, it passed in the negaUve." — lb. p. 200. 

"On the 11th December, 1706. — Resolved, That this House will receive no petition for any 
sum of money, relating to public service, but what is recommended by the Crown. Upon the 
11th June, 1713, this is declared to be a standing order of the House." — lb. p. 202. 

"On the 2d of February, 1726, a petition of the land owners in the Isle of Ely, for lessening 
the proportion of the said isle to the land tax, being offered, and the question being put. That 
the petition be brought up, it passed in the negative." — lb. ]). 202. 

"On the 8th March, 1732, a petition being offered against a bill depending for securing the 
trade of the sugar colonies, it was refused to be brought up. A motion was then made, That 
a committee be appointed to seaich precedents in relation to the receiving or not receiving peti- 
tions against the imposing of duties, and the question being put, it passed in the negative." — 
lb. p. 202. 

"On the 28tb of January, 1760, a petition of the maltsters of Ipswich, against the additional 



33 

duty upon the stock of malt in hand, being offered, on question, That it may be brought upon, 
it passed in the negative, nemine coniradicente." — lb. p. 203. 

**0n the 15th of February, 1765, a petition of Mr. Montague, agent for Virginia, and a pe- 
tition from Connecticut, and another from the inhabitants of Carohna, against the bill then de- 
pending for imposing a stamp duty in America, being offered, upon question for brining it up, 
it passed in the negative." — lb. p. 204. 

" On tlie 4th March, 1795, a petition of certain merchants, importers, and dealers in foreign 
wines, praying that the proposed augmentation of duties on foreign wines may not be imposed 
on the stock in hand on the 23d of February last, being offered to be presented to the House, 
the question being put. That the said petition be brought up, it passed in the negative, nemine 
contradicente." — lb. p. 208. 

Here, then, are precedents for more than a century. 

" The House adopted this rule: 'That they would not receive any petition against a bill then 
depending for imposing a tax or duty.' The principle upon which this rule was adopted appears 
to be this: that a tax extending in its effects over every part of the kingdom, and more or less 
:iffecting every individual, and in its nature necessarily and intentionally imposing a burden 
upon the people, it can answer no end or purpose whatever for any set of petitioners to state 
these consequences as a grievance to the House. The House of Commons, before they come 
to a resolution which imposes a tax, cannot but know that it may very sensibly affect the com- 
merce or manufactures upon which the duly is laid; but they cannot permit the inconvenience 
that may possibly be brought upon a particular branch of trade to weigh with them when put in 
the balance with those advantages which are intended to result to the whole, and which the pub- 
lic necessities of the State demand from them. For these reasons it has been thought better and 
more candid to the persons petitioning, at once to refuse receiving their petition, rather than, by 
receiving it, to give countenance to the application, and to mislead the petitioners into an idea, 
that in consequence of their petitions the House of Commons would desist from the tax pro- 
posed, and impose another, which, though it might be less fell by that branch of trade, might 
be more oppressive to some other." — lb. p. 206. 

So much for English precedents. And yet, the right of petition, at this day, is 
more important to tlie people of England than to the people of the United States. 
Gentlemen, as I said before, are unjust to themselves and to the country, when 
they talk about the right of petition being the foundation of our liberties ; and they 
are equally in error when they say that the federal constitution recognises the right 
of petition as transmitted by our English ancestors. The difierence consists in this, 
that we, the Congress of the United States, have a written constitution which de- 
fines our powers and limits their exercise, by enumerating the subjects over which 
we may legislate. But, in England, the power of Parliament is almost unlimited and 
undefinable — is supreme and absolute. No men were better acquainted with the 
jurisprudence of England, in all its branches, than the statesmen of tiie Revolution, 
and those who framed our constitution. It was in the laws of England that they 
i'ound a definition of the powers of Government, the rights of the people, and the 
duties of rulers — a line drawn between the asserted and legitimate powers of royal 
prerogative. They found that there were customs, charters, and franchises, a magna 
ciiarta, and acts of Parliament, all declaratory of the private and corporate rights 
of the people, and intended to secure their enjoyment. They knew that it was 
in defence of these rights that their ancestors had often taken up arms in the old 
world, and that they had endeavored to guaranty their security in this country, 
by bringing with them written charters, and establishing democratic institutions. 
Taking their stand upon these principles and rights, they asserted them in all 
their appeals, remonstrances, and public acts, from the commencement to the con- 
summation of the Revolution. But experience taught the people of this country 
that two great changes at least were indispensable, in order to avert for the future 
the evils and perils of the past. That the supreme power must not be invested 
in any legislative body, as it was in Parliament ; and that no power should be ex- 
ercised, except as delegated, intrusted, and authorized. Hence, when renouncing 
their allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and dissolving their connexion with 
the English Government, in making a declaration of their rights, they followed the 
example of their ancestors. But they went much further in their prudent caution 
and jealousy of power, by defining the powers of the governments which they 
3 



34 

established, by written constitutions. But if it was deemed important as a safe- 
guard of liberty, to define by written constitulions the powers of government, 
when the people of the colonies declared themselves independent States, or when, 
as " allied sovereigns,'' they formed the league of confederation, how much more 
important did a written constitution become, when, in order to form a more per- 
fect union, it was necessary to change the alliance into an effective government, 
possessing great and sovereign powers, and acting directly on the people ; when 
the powers of Government were to be divided between the Government of the 
Union and those of the States; "when each Government was to be sovereign 
with respect to the objects committed to it, and neither sovereign with respect to 
the objects committed to the other." The constitution, then,"having been thus 
formed, and having been established for the high purposes to which I have alluded, 
must be our only rule and guide. To interpret its meaning, we have only to read 
its plam and palpable mandates, remembering, especially, " that the powers not 
delegated to the United States by the const^itution, nor prohibited by it to the 
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 

Considering, then, the clause in the first amendment to the constitution, which 
relates to the right of petition, what is the right which is guarantied to the people, 
and which we are prohibited from abridging? The language is plain and une- 
quivocal. It is, that " Congress shall make no laio'" abridging " the right of the 
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of 
grievances." In the law books,* " a petition" is defined to be " a supplica- 
tion made by an inferior to a superior, and especially to one having jurisdic- 
Hon.'" And again:! "a petition" is called an instrument of writing or printing 
containing a prayer from the person presenting it, called the petitioner, to the 
body or person to whom it is presented, for the redress of some wrong or the 
grant of some favor, which the latter has the right to give.'' Thus it is consid- 
ered a privilege and a right against real grievances— grievances felt and manifest. 
In its very nature it is a restricted right— a privilege of defined" limitation. The 
very phraseology of the constitution is a limitation of the exercise of the right of 
petition. The constitution gives Congress only cognizance and jurisdiction for 
specific purposes, and our rule of action n)ust be in accordance with the constitu- 
tion. We cannot of right be petitioned to do that which we have no constitutional 
power to do, much less that which we have sworn not to do. No petitioner has a 
right to ask for a redress of grievances, unless they be grievances under which he 
suffers, and which Congress has the constitutional power to redress. Now, sir, 
who are theae petitioners, and what the object of their petitions'? Who are theyl 
Individuals who, shutting their eyes to the evils and miseries around them, would, 
in dreamy mysticism, indulge a sickly sentimentality for the imaginary benefit of 
remote communities; who, with self-assumed superiority and pharisaical pride, 
arrogate to themselves the entire possession of philanthropy ; who, secure from 
all dangers themselves, would institute rash experiments on our peace and happi- 
ness, and the extirpation of one or other of two eternalhj distinct races; for no de- 
gree of equality, no amalgamation, can be thought of, which would produce a con- 
nexion at which the soul sickens with loathing and disgust. Yes, sir, such are the 
petitione.-s, and such the inevitable consequences if their prayers be carried out; 
for some of them ask Congress to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District 
of Columbia, some to abolish it in the Territories, and some in the States. Now, 
Sir, are the prayers of these memorials fit subjects for our legislation, and do they 
sft forth such grievances as they have a right" to complain of, or we the power to 
redress? I answer, no ; the €onsti(ution answers no ; and 1 hope and believe that 
a majority of the constituents of the members who defend these petitions will an- 



* romlin's Law Dictionary. f Bouvar's Law Dictionary. 



35 



swer no. But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot but think tliat great efforts have been made 
to cover the real objects of the abolition nnennorialists, to divert attention from the 
real questions involved, and to make a new issue out of the right of the people lo 
petition. To meet their view of the case, I would remind gentlemen that, though 
tiie first article of the amendments of the constitution declares that " Congress 
shall make no law'" abridging "the right of the people peaceably to assemble'and 
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," the second clause of 
the fifth section of the first article gives express power to each House to deter- 
mine the rules of its proceeding. Now, sir, it is not proposed that Congress should 
make any law upon the subject of petitions, that the power of this House should 
be exercised out of this House, or over any others than the members of this House. 
It is not proposed to send forth an edict forbidding the people to assemble, ex- 
cept in certain numbers, and proclaiming that they shall not petition, save in a 
certain manner. Nothing of this kind has been proposed ; we have nothing to 
do with the assembling of the people, or with the manner in which they may 
choose to use, or even abuse, their right to petition ; but, when they shall have 
assembled, and set their names to their petitions, and offered them here, they 
will have exercised all their constitutional rights to the fullest extent ; and just 
where their rights cease ours commence. The moment a petition or memorial is 
offered or attempted to be offered here, the action of this House commences; and, 
under our constitutional right to determine the rules of our proceeding, we can say 
what order shall be taken in the premises — whether the petition shalfbe received, 
be laid on the table, be referred, or be rejected. When the petition is of a private 
nature, besides the brief statement of the contents required to be made verbally 
by the introducer, to justify any action whatsoever by the House, it is generally 
most advisable to refer the matter to a committee, in order to put the House, if 
necessary, in possession of all the facts in the case : but when the petition is of a 
public nature ; when the subject-matter is well understood ; when the character of 
the petition is known by its very name; when it is evident and palpable that the 
House can exercise no legislative action, there can be no necessity to consider 
such petition, to refer it to a committee, or even to receive it at all. The right 
of petition is a mere right to ask, not a right lo demand ; and had the constitution 
made it obligatory upon us to receive all petitions, we should have no power to 
reject any. But gentlemen admit there are exceptions ; that we have a right to 
refuse petitions which are disrespectful ; that self-defence, self-respect, what is 
due to our own character and dignity, give us this right. Does it comport with 
our dignity and self-respect to hear an institution which is recognised by the con- 
stitution we have sworn to uphold, denounced as a curse; to hear our constituents 
stigmatized by every opprobrious epithet which is uttered in the rant and rhap- 
sody of fanaticism'? Or is it becoming our character and dignity to suffer our 
consciences to be tampered with, for the specious purposes of a superserviceable 
zeal ? No, sir ; our duties, our rights here, respect not alone ourselves ; and, 
even if they did, what greater disrespect could be offered us than to petition us to 
violate the oaths which we have taken ? But we arc here to represent our con- 
stituents and the whole people ; to stand by and support the constitution ; to guard 
the rights of each and every portion of this Union, and so to legislate as not to 
pollute our hands or desecrate our consciences with any thing which has political 
speculation for its origin, or party purpose for its object. Some gentlemen, who 
have set themselves up as the strenuous advocates of the right of petition, who 
say that we must not, nay, dare not refuse to hear the toice of the people, as set 
forth in these abolition memorials, are yet willing " that every petition, memorial, 
resolution, proposition, or paper, touching or relating in any way or to any extent 
whatever to slavery, or to the abolition thereof, shall, on the presentation thereof^ 
without any further acTIon thereon, be laid on the table, without being printed, de- 
bated, or referred ;" tmis making the whole right of petition to consist or depend 



3G 

upon the presentation and reception. They are wiUing, so that abolition pe- 
titions be \i\iireceivecl,\\vdi tiiey should be ordered to lie on the table — to be com- 
mitted to the tomb of the Capulets, there to sleep forever in oblivion. I will not 
quarrel with these gentlemen; I will not quibble about terms; but I apprehend 
it will require some special pleading to prove that such proceeding is very materi- 
ally different from rejecting such petitions in limine et instanter. 

But, Mr. Speaker, why will not gentlemen who say they disapprove of the ob- 
jects of the abolitionists, tell the [(Ctitioners that their prayers cannot be granted, 
that they cannot vote tor their request, and that they will not be instrumental in ar- 
resting the public business by presenting, day after day, and session after session, 
these same inflammatory memorials'? Has not the gentleman from iVIassachusetts 
informed us that he would be unwilling to vote for the request of the abolitionists'? 
Has he not declared that, if a vote were even now taken upon a proposition to 
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, it would receive but one solitary 
vote in this House; that the gentleman from Vern)ont (Mr. Slade) would vote 
alone, and stand solitary in that vote'? Must we, then, receive, and debate for 
months about the reception of petitions, which meet with the almost unanimous 
opposition of Congress, and which ninety-nine men out of a hundred in the North 
itself are opposed to? Am I to be told, wiih these facts knov/n and admitted, that 
I am denying the ri^ht of petition, and refusing a great constitutional privilege, 
because I insist upon the rejection of petitions under siich circumstances? But 
gentlemen say, receive these petitions, and no matter whether they are read or 
not, let them be referred to a committee ; let the subject be investigated, discuss- 
ed, and reported upon; argue with the memorialist, and tell them why and where- 
fore Congress cannot interfere with the question. What is this, sir, but keeping 
the word of promise to the ear, and breaking it to the hope'? And how long is this 
state of things to continue? Did Mr. Pinckney's report do what it was said it 
would eflect ? No, sir, it fell dead-born from the press, pleasing neither the 
North nor the South, and abolition was as rife as ever. From 1790, when, upon 
the first presentation of an abolition petition, it was resolved " that Congress had 
no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves," how many resolutions 
have passed, how many elaborate reports have been made, all affirming the same 
constitutional doctrine, and yet, sir, what have they all availed? Nothing, and 
never can so long as we consent to receive such petitions. If the judgment of 
Congress, in 1790, composed of the men of the Revolution, many of tliem the 
very men who framed the constitution, could not produce conviction, vvhu argu- 
ments can we use, what expositions of the constitution can we make, which will 
quell tiie fanaticism? In my apprehension, it was an error in 1790 to have re- 
ceived the petition of the abolitionists — it would be worse than an error to receive 
them now, after our experience of the mischievous consequences of such reception. 
It has but added fuel to the flame. Year after year, session after session, these 
memorials have increased, and will continue to increase, so long as the question 
is left open, so long as the abolitionists entertain the hope to weary us by their 
persevering importunity into a compliance with their requests. I, for one, wish 
this state of things to cease and determine. I am unwilling to pretermit positive 
duties, to argue questions of theoretical policy. I am unwilling to waste the time 
of this House, and the people's money, in discussing matters over which we can 
exercise no legislative control. I would vote to refer these petitions once, but 
once only, if I thought a report could be written to quiet forever the question ; and I 
would vote a million of money to have that report sent to every voter in the nation, 
if L thought that such would be the result of its dissemination ; but I do not believe 
it would have such an effect. I am convinced that the only way to put an end to ab- 
olition excitement, is to refuse to entertain the petitions. The debate upon this ques- 
tion must cease in this Hall, or the Union will, sooner or lajler, be dissol.vcd ; it is 
madness, it is wickedness to deny it, and 1 trust that this iTouse will take so de- 



37 

cided a stand upon the question, that it will make the thinking portion of the 
abolitionists pause in their wild career. If others aid and abet them, they may 
succeed in overthrowing the Government, but they never will be able to get the 
Government to aid them in the purposes of abolition. In speaking of these peti- 
tions, I have used the calmest language possible ; but, sir, apart from all argu- 
ment about constitutional rights and constitutional violations, what words but those 
of pity should be held of those who unsex themselves in their zeal about what 
should not concern them 1* I would noi notice this class of petitioners but that their 

* I subjoin the following, which has been sent to me, marked in the •' Cradle of Liberty,^* 
a paper published in Boston, February 1, 1840, in order to show that my remarks are not with- 
out cause, when women attend abolition conventions with the thermometer fen degrees heloio 
zero, and rear up their daughters to advocate amalgamation of colors : 

"WOMAN'S CONVENTION. 

"Mr. Garrisqiv : Haverhill, January 20, 1840. 

"Dear sir: The Women's Anti-Slavery Conference, composed of delegates from Haver- 
hill, Bradford, Georgetown, Andover, and other towns in the vicinity, had their quarterly meet- 
ing in Haverhill, on Thursday, the 17th instant, at the house of Nathan Webster, Esq. ; and, 
notwithstanding the severity of the weather — the thermometer raging ten degrees below zero — 
an unusually large number was present, and forty-Jive enrolled their names as members of the 
conference. At half past 3, the meeting was organized by the "appointment of Mrs. Harris, of 
H., President, Mrs. Greanleaf, of B., Secretary, and Mrs. Palmer, of G., Treasurer pro tem. 

"On motion, voted, that two from each local society constitute a committee to prepare business 
tor the meeting. 

" On motion, the reports from the diSerent local societies were read. They were interesting, 
and highly encouraging. Several of the reports stated that the conference had a salutary influ- 
ence upon the local societies ; that since its formation their meetings had been much better attend- 
ed. Greater zeal was manifested, and, in some instances, more members were added. Among 
these, was that of the Juvenile Society of Andover, which was peculiarly interesting, from the 
lender age of many of its members, and the punctuality of their attendance on their meetings, 
and the earnestness which they labored to raise funds to carry forward the great work which is 
before us. 

"Some excellent resolutions were offered by Mrs. Greenleaf, of Bradford, and, after some dis- 
cussion, were adopted. A copy of them, however, has not been received. 

"A letter from Mrs. M. W. Chapman, of Boston, was read; also one from Hiram Wilson, 
acknowledging the receipt of five dollars from the last quarterly conference. 

"On motion, voted, that the money raised at this meeting be sent to Mrs. Chapman, to assist 
in defraying the expense of publishing the first series of Tales, to be issued monthly. Adjourn- 
ed to half past 6 in the evening. 

" Thursday evening, half past 6. — The conference was called to order, and the following 
resolutions were offered, and, after 7nuch discussion, adopted : 

" Whereas recent events have proved, beyond the possibility of doubt, that the North is 
verily guilty of aiding and abetting the nefarious schemes of the slaveholder, both in procuring 
and retaining human beings as slaves; therefore, 

'■^Resolved, That prejudice against co/or is the main pillar that supports slavery, and that 
this prejudice exists at the North as well as at the South. 

*^ Resolved, That this prejudice is anti-republican, anti-christian, or, in other words, that 
it is in direct opposition to the example of Jesus Christ, and the precepts of the New Testatment. 

" Resolved, That this it is the solemn duty of all abolitionists to use their utmost endeavors to 
expel this monster prejudice from our hearts, and the whole of this boasted Christian republic. 

^'Resolved. That twe consider all laws making a distiiiction on account of color, as a dis- 
grace to the statute-book of this commonwealth : Therefore, 

" Resolved, That we will not cease to petition the Legislature of this State annually, till all 
such laivs be repealed. 

Resolved, That we consider the Liberator the most independent paper, if not the only inde- 
pendent one, in this country ; and therefore worthy the support of all true lovers of liberty. 

" Resolved, That Mrs. Hewes, of Haverhill, be a committee to receive the reports of each 
meeting of the conference from the secretary pro tem., and record them in a book kept for that 
purpose ; also, that she send a report of this meeting to the editor of the Liberator for publica- 
tion. 

" With the highest respect and esteem for the independent course you have pursued, permit me 
to subscribe myself, your friend, J- H. HEWES. 



3S 

rights too have been gravely urged upon this question, and that many of these 
niemorials whicli have produced so much mischief, caused so mucli excitement, 
cost so much of the time and money of the nation, are signed by sickly women 
and children, most of whom never saw a slave, and could not be grieved very 
much by their existence anywhere. Would not the benevolence and time of 
these persons be much better employed in mending their husbands' coats and 
brothers' stockings, in teaching their own children, or attending charity or Sunday 
schools'? 

It has been called by some gentlemen an act of despotism on the part of this 
House to reject the petitions of these unnatural wom^n ; and the petition of some 
little misses is made a subject of as much importance as a memorial signed by 
thousands of the men of the nation. The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr, 
Adams,) in the excitement of his feelings, seemed to regard a proposition for the 
rejection of these petitions as more tyrannical than any act of a Turkish despot- 
ism, affirming that the Grand Turk always received and entertained petitions, and 
that he never rode out without having petitions'presented to him. To make the 
authority which he has quoted applicable, he should have shown that the Grand 
Turk received, for forty or fifty years, petitions on questions over which he had 
no jurisdiction, as Congress have done, or if they had jurisdiction have always re- 
fused to grant. Or will he show me a single case where the Grand Turk received 
a petition patiently which prayed virtually an overthrow of his Government; or a 
single case where the petitioner or petitioners retained his or their heads'who 
had signed or presented such a petition 1 That puissant potentate differs but little 
from the Autocrat of Russia, except that he possesses a higher despotism, and on 
the subject of petition his course would be but very little different from that de- 
scribed by Montesquieu, who says : 

"In Russia, we are tolJ, the Czar Peter established a law that no subject might petition the 
Throne, until he had first petitioned two diflerent ministers of State. In case he obtained justice 
from neither, he might then present a third petition to the prince, but upon pain of death, if 
found to be in the wrong. The consequence of which was that no one dared to of^er such third 
petition." 

I will here make a short digression from the line of my argument to say one 
word in relation to what has fallen in debate. An allusion has been made to a me- 
morial on the subject of abolition from some of the Society of Friends. Represent- 
ing, as I do, a district in wiiich a large number of that society reside, I would be 
doin^ violence to my own feelings and injustice to them if I did not state that they 
are free from every feeling of excitement on tliis question. Forbearance is a part 
of their faith, and a love of order and peace their fondest delight. Whilst they 
do not hold slaves themselves, they do not dispute with their neighbors who do ; 
nor do tiiey desire that the General Government should deprive any portion of 
their fellow-citizens of their property.* 



* The following letter, giving an account of the views of the Society of Friends, who assem- 
bled in Maryland, is too interesting not to be published. The name of the writer, as a dislin- 
gui.shed citizen, is too well known not to command the highest and most favorable considera- 
tion : 

Baltimohe, 2d mo., 25, 1840. 

Esteemed Fbiexd : I this morning received thy letter of the 24th instant, inquiring of me 
if the Society of Friends had not expressed their dissatisfaction of the abolition excitement nowr 
existing in the North. Although the question is one of some embarrassment, I will endeavor 
plainly to answer it, and will give thee all the information in my power to enable thee correctly 
to understand our position. 

The Society of Friends, under their existing organization in the United States, are composed 
of a number of Yearly Meetings. Each of these meetings regulates its own church discipline, 
independent of the others, and issues from time to time to the members that constitute it, such 
admonitions and rules as it may deem expedient. As regards the action of any of these meetings 



And I will here state, in defence of the name of William. Pinkney, who has been 
so frequently quoted by abolition writers and speakers, that Mr. Pinkney defended 
abolition when he was a member of tlie House of Delegates of Maryland, but he 
did so as a citizen of that State, and before a legislative body having jurisdiction 
to consider the question. But that great man, who was so eminent as a constitu- 
tional lawyer, and was emphatically wliat Chief Justice Marshall called him — " the 
monarch of the bar," — when transferred to the Senate of the United States, where 
he stood the personification of genius with the eloquence of himself, was the 
most eloquent defender of the slaveholding States, and the unrivalled advocate of 
the admission of Missouri as a slaveholding State into the Union. In the Senate, 
the constitution which he had sworn to support was the rule of his guidance. 



in relation to the subject of thy inquiry, I can only speak so far as concerns the one of v?hich I 
am a member, and which is composed of the Friends residing on the Western Shore of Maryland 
and the adjacent parts of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and who hold their yearly meetings at Bal- 
timore. In the year 1835 this yearly meeting, perceiving the growing excitement then rap- 
idly manifesting itself on the subject of abolition, and not feeling itself called upon to take part, 
or in any way involve itself in this excitement, issued a caution to its members, "that we may, 
both as a society and individually, keep ourselves unconnected with the excitement now so gen- 
erally prevailing in our land, and be careful to maintain our prinriples [in regard to slavery] in 
the meek and peaceable spirit of the Lamb; and that we avoid compromitting ourselves by en- 
tering into combinations with those whose motives we do not understand." 

In the year 1839 the yearly meeting renewed its advice on the same subject, and, after exhort- 
ing its members "to be faithful in the support of our righteous testimony against slavery," cau- 
tioned them "against entangling themselves with those associations that have sprung up in dif- 
ferent parts of our country in relation to this subject, and which, we fear, will retard rather than 
promote the work." 

In order that we may not be misunderstood, it is a duty I owe both to thee and to myself, on 
the present occasion, to speak frankly, and without reserve or concealment, on this deeply im- 
portant subject. After communicating the foregoing facts, in relation to the proceedings of the 
yjearly meeting of which I am a member, I must, therefore, be permitted to add some remarks 
iHustrative of our views. These I will endeavor to condense into as few words as possible, and 
I beg they may be received as a part of my answer. 

The Society of Friends, almost from its first organization, have been o[)poscd to slavery upon 
the ground of religious principle, and they were the first to raise their voice against the African 
slave trade. They have ever viewed the system as unjust, and believed it would lead to calami 
tous consequences. They consider it a violation of that injunction of the Divine Master which 
enjoins it upon us as a duty, to do unto others as we would they should do unto us ; and they 
believe that men are not reduced to slavery, nor continued in slavery, with their own consent, 
but by the exertion of force. The society bear, also, a religious testimony against war, because 
they consider all violence to be, in like manner, forbidden by the same Divine authority ; and, for 
the same reason, they cannot swear. In maintaining these testimonies, which they feel them- 
selves called upon to do openly and publicly, they do not desire to invade the rights of others, 
nor improperly to interfere with their views ; valuing above all earthly privileges the inestimable 
blessing of a free and untrammeled liberty of conscience, they dare not invade the sacred enjoy- 
ment of that liberty by all others, while they claim the right to exercise it themselves. It is, 
therefore, no part of our system to compel people to do what vi'e may think to be right. We be- 
lieve it to be our duty to do right ourselves, and, consequently, we gave liberty to thp slaves under 
our control ; and, having relieved our own consciences, and, as we apprehend, set an example 
of justice to those around us, we left every one to exercise his judgment as regarded what it might 
be right for him to do. 

The Society of Friends, therefore, I believe, cannot be correctly charged with getting up the 
present excitement on the subject of abolition ; for, although they view slavery, as it now exists 
in the United States, to be a grievous evil, and some of their members may have fallen under 
the prevailing excitement, and perhaps participated in the measures taken by the abolitionists, 
yet, so far as I am advised, the number of these (if any) within our limits have been few, and 
cur members have very generally followed the advice of their yearly meetings. 

Assuring thee of my highest regard and esteem, I am, very respectfully, thy friend, 

P. E. THOMAS. 

The Hon, Wm. Cost Jounsox, Washington. 



40 

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) has alluded to the controversy 
now existing between the Executives of the States of Virginia and New York, in 
which the rights of jurisdiction over persons, non-residents, but violaters of the 
laws of the State wherein they committed the offence, is involved, and the gen- 
tleman intimated that that controversy is infinitely more dangerous than the excite- 
ment occasioned by the abolitionists; so much so, that he stated we are on the 
eve of a civil war. I have read the communications of the two Executives, which 
I now hold in my hand, printed by the State of New York, and sent me by a friend 
(Mr. Sibley) now in the Senate of that State. 

[The Speaker here interposed, and said that he had interrupted other gentle- 
men who had alluded to that controversy, and that he must remind the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. 'Johnson) that it was foreign to the true question before 
the House.] 

Mr. Speaker, you need be under no apprehensions, I do not mean to discuss 
the question, and indeed if 1 did, I can perceive no impropriety in my so doing, 
as it is a fit question for examination. All that I mean to say is, that 1 differ in 
opinion with the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Adams,) who looks upon 
the question as hanging on the verge of a civil war. I see no feeling of hostility 
in the correspondence. The communications are dignified and argumentative, 
and creditable to either Executive, though 1 differ from the Governor of New^York 
in some of his positions and deductions. I will not however enter into the merits 
of the controversy ; but to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) I 
would say, that if he thinks we are on the eve of a civil war, and he regards it 
(as I iiope and am sure he does) as a great national calamity, I would beg him to 
consider if he is averting it by the course which he takes upon this floor. Will he 
expect to cure a greater evil by inflicting in addition a lesser one ? Does he grad- 
uate these calamities in his mind, and inflict abolition petitions upon us, because 
he would esckew a civil war between New York and Virginia? Would not the 
calamity of a civil war between the General Government and the South, or by an 
insurrection, be quite as deplorable, and as much to be averted 1 Yet let me tell 
that gentleman, every defence which is made of abolition is calculated to hasten 
that calamity. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) censures severely the resolu- 
tion offered by the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Thompson,) because, he 
says, it is indefinite and too vague, and proposes one as an amendment which is cal- 
culated to invite collision, and would make this House nothing more than a wrang< 
ling and confused assemblage. And here let me again say, Mr. Speaker, that no 
one knows better than myself the peril which I encounter in opposing the positions 
of the distinguished member from Massachusetts. I know how promptly he is 
willing to attack or to defend ; and, if he does not at the instant, he always com- 
pounds upon time. The gentleman considered the resolution of the gentleman 
from South Carolina as wanting decision, as waiving the true issue, and classed 
it in the wooden nutmeg ordr-r, only worthy of a peddling Yankee, and totally 
unbecoming the chivalric gentleman, or, as he also called him, the chevalier from 
South Carolina. Can I not say the same, and with greater justice, of the resolu- 
tion offered by the gallant member from Massachusetts ? For who on this floor is 
so perfectly the pink of chivalry as that member 2 He is but the archetype of the 
chevalier from South Carolina ? Who, on this floor or ofi' of it, is so ready to 
break a lance as the gentleman from the old Bay Stale? He likes the strife for 
the sport. He will measure weapons at any time, even with the smallest adver- 
sary, if bat to keep himself in practice, whilst the most formidable he rejoices 
to encounter ; and hence his readiness to throw a glove to the equally ready 
and the equally gallant gentleman from South Carolina. They have measured 
weapons ; yet, 



41 



" Not hate but glory made these chiefs contend, 
" And each brave toe was in his soul a friend." 



Mr. Speaker, have you ever traversed the great prairies of the far West ? Wei!, 
I have. You can there see {\w bison roaming gregarious over those beautiful 
and almost endless fields of nature. Occasionally you may see an old veteran of 
the herd — to whom danger has been familiar, and therefore held in contempt — 
separated afar from the rest, and quietly depasturing on the rich and luxuriant 
flowers and herbage around him. By close observation you may occasionally see 
some hungry and sanguinary insect light upon the side of the noble animal, yet 
the wound rudely inflicted will excite but seldom other sensation than contempt, 
or perhaps a single twitch of the insulted muscle will alarm away the intruder. 
Again, you may see, in the bright sunshine of that delightful region, innumerable 
quantities of those kindred insects light in fantastic companies, and fasten them- 
selves upon the c^dm and self-possessed animal, who will perhaps reserve his ire 
until the whole swarm are busy at their work of blood, when the indignant crea- 
ture will, by one fell swoop of his vast brush, knock into ruin and confusion the 
whole insectiverous tribe. Even so of the gentleman from Massachusetts. Or, if 
1 may be allowed a less rural and more classical simile, he, like Homer's great 
Ajar. Telamon, is ever ready to meet the puissant Hector in single combat, and 
to worst him ; and, like that same dread Telamon, encounter singly and alone a 
whole wing of the Trojan arn)y, drive them back defeated and confounded, and 
then wield aloft his yet thirsty sword in triumph to the gods ! 

But to the resolution. Has tlie gallant member from Massachusetts proposed a 
more distinct and conclusive proposition than that which he has satirised? The 
learned gentleman's amendment invites collision in this House, and would require 
every member objecting to a memorial to spread his arguments on the journal— 
virtually to make the journal a register and record of written speeches. 

Nearly a month have we been discussing this question: and with such an 
amendment not only all that has been said would have been written on the journal, 
but those members who do not speak would quickly begin to puzzle their brains 
to write ; whilst those who can neither make a speech nor write one would follow 
the example set by a member from Maine, at this session, [Mr. Clifford,] wiio 
got the clerk of the House both to write and read his speech for him. And, again, 
those, if there be any such, who can neither speak, write, nor read, would employ 
some one to write an argument for them, in order to have their names, with the 
written paper, spread upon the journal. This would be of daily recurrence on 
every memorial upon which there was the slightest difference of opinion ; and the 
journal of your House would become virtually the autograph of the metropolitan 
newspaper. In a I't'w years your journal would be long enough to reach round 
the globe; it would take an indefinite time to read one day^s proceedings ; and in 
a little while it would rival in bulk the Alexandrian library, and be as long as the 
belt around Saturn. Nor is this hyperbolical, when we consider the materiel oi 
this House and its disputatious propensity. Every thing is discussed, and the 
same story, the same arguments, are told and retold again and again. Nothing 
is taken for granted, when every thing must be proven by argument, and no mem- 
ber considers that any one is familiar with a subject but himself. All debate 
what the constitution should be, instead of considering it a fixed instrument ot 
clear and precise import, equally obligatory in all its requirements. So much for 
the resolution of the gentleman from Massachusetts ; and I might urge many other 
objections: but for me it is enough that neither the gentleman's resolution nor his 
speech upon it denies the power of the House to reject petitions. 

The resolution which I have proposed avoids interfering with the question of 
slavery as guarantied to the owners of that property, and the Government pledge 
under the constitution to protect each master in it ; for it may become neces- 



42 

sary for Congress to pass some penal laws, which will raore effectually secure the 
right of the master to this species of property.* 

It is a fact worthy of remark, that property of this description was more sa- 
credly respected before than since the adoption of the federal constitution. Wil- 
liam Penn, one of the great benefactors of mankind, always used his influence to 
secure the master in his property, as will be seen by &,e following extract from 
the records in the archives of Maryland : 

" State of Martland, to wit : I Cornelius McLean, Secretary of State for the Slate of 
Maryland, do hereby certify that the following words viz ; • As to Pennsylvania, they are sensi- 
ble that the raising and lowering coins has been an advantage that government has had above 
his Majesty's immediate governments, but what advantages they have made thereby they cannot 
judge, but believe it has at sometimes been the means to draw out the money from his Majesty's 
governments to the proprietary governments, and for some time and still does continue so to do 
from this province to Pennsylvania. 

" ' 'J'hat government, before Governor Penn's last arrival there, did give too much countenance 
to fugitive seamen, debtors, and runaway servants going from hence, and did rather impede than 
further their return ; but Mr. Penn, upon his arrival, gave some redress to those evils, and con- 
tinued so to do during his stay there, especially as to runuway servants.' 

" Are truly extracted from the reply of the council to a communication from his Excellency 
j\athaniel Blakeston, Governor of the Province of Maryland, recorded in the proceedings of the 
council held at the town of Annapolis on the twenty-ninth day of IVovember, anno domini 1701." 

" In witness whereof, and that the same is truly and faithfully taken from the proceedings 
aforesaid, now of record in my office, I have hereunto set my hand at the city of Annapolis, on 
this 10th day of Februarv, in the vear of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fortj"." 

" CORNELIUS McLEAN, 

Secretary of State." 

It may also be worthy of remark, that the two most benevolent men — the two 
who stand in the fullest relief upon the f)ages of our colonial and national history, 
as benefactors of the. human race, and whose names will grow in brightness as 



* I extract the following from the Emancipator : 

" SrGTTs OF THF. Ti>fES. — A gentleman in Vermont writes, February 17. ' Four fugitives 
from the ' [)atriarchal system' left my house this morning, on their way to Queen Victoria's do- 
minions. One was from Richmond, Va., and three from Baltimore. They were fine fellows, 
having been house servants. They were quite happy.'" 

" At the late western New York convention, at West Bloomfield, Ontario county, Feb. — , the 
Friend of Man informs us that, 

"At this stage of the proceedings, great interest was added to the occasion by the introduc- 
tion to the crowded audience of Lloyd and Nicholas Howard, who had just escaped from the 
dark prison-house of slavery, and were then on their way to Canada. These intelligent and in- 
teresting gentlemen, gave a brief sketch of their narrow escape — of their reasons for leaving their 
happy homes, &c. W^illiam O. Duvall, Joseph Crocker, and Pardon D. Hathaway, were ap- 
pointed a committee to escort' them to the free dominions of Queen Victoria. A subscription of 
about $20 was taken up to defray their expenses. The officers of the convention, were ap- 
pointed a committee to correspond with Dorsey, of Baltimore, the individual who claimed 

these two men as human chattels." 

"Mr. Skinner, the editor of the American Farmer, at Baltimore, will see that Mr. Doraey's 
$3,000 are gone, irretrievably. What is to be done about it !" 

To show how reckless fanaticism will make men to a total contempt of the laws and constitu- 
tion, I will quote what the constitution declares: 

" No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into 
another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service 
or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may b« 
due." — 4th art. sec. 2, 3d clause constitution U. S. 

Those people who have aided to decoy these negroes to Canada, in open violation of the con" 
stitution, which protects, or was intended to protect, every individual in his property, and this 
species of property especially, may see those negroes in a very difiererat dress, if we should en- 
gage in a war with England. The British authorities of Canada have a regiment of negroes un- 
der arms, principally runaway slaves, who are seized as soon as they cross the line and placed 
m the ranks as regular soldiers. 



43 



they grow in years — George Washington and William Penn, both died owners of 
slaves. Tiie fact in relation to tjie former is familiar to all, and I extract the fol- 
lowing from an able American historian, in relation to the latter : 

" William Penn employed blacks luiihout scruple. His first act relating to them did but 
substitute, after fourteen years' service, the severe condition of adscripts to the soil for that of 
slaves. At a later day, he endeavored to secure to the African mental and moral culture, the 
rights and happiness of domestic life. His efforts were not successful, and he himself died a 
slaveholder." — Bancroft's History of the U. S,, vol. 2, p. 403. 

But, Mr. Speaker, if my argi.in)ents, and the facts and illustrations which I have 
adduced, have not yet produced conviction ; if there should be a lingering doubt 
upon the minds of any member as to the right, propriety, and expediency of re- 
jecting abolition memorials, I will fortify my position with the additional author- 
ity of such distinguished names as will, 1 feel pursuaded, remove all hesitancy — 
names of the most distinguished men in the nation ; names, too, of such gentle- 
men as have been most prominent and conspicuous in this protracted debate. I 
will read from the journal of this House, session of 1835-'36, January ]8th, p. 
194, by which it will appear that one hundred and seventy-six members voted 
for the rejection of abolition petitions, and only thirty-seven against rejecting ; 
and the name of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) 
heads the list : 

" Mr. McKexxax offered to present petitions from citizens of the county of Washington, in 
the State of Pennsylvania, which, he stated, prayed that slavery, and the slave trade, within the 
District of Columbia, may be immediately abolished. 

" Mr. McKennan moved that said petitions be received : 

"And, on the question. Shall these petitions be received 1 

" A motion was made by Mr. Gideon Lee, that this question do lie on the table. 

♦' A motion was then made by Mr. Wise, that there be a call of the House: 

" Which motion being decided in the negative, 

" The question was put on the motion made by Mr. Lee, that the question, Shall these pe- 
titions be received] do lie on the table ; 

" And passed in the affirmative : Yeas 176, nays 37. 

"The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the members present, 

" Those who voted in the affirmative, are, 



Mr. John Quincy Adams 
Chilton Allan 
.Joseph B. Anthony 
Michael W. Ash 
William H. Ashley 
Samuel Barton 
James M. H. Beale 
Benning Mr. Bean 
Samuel Beardsley 
Andrew Beaumont 
John Bell 
Abraham Bockee 
William K. Bond 
Ratliff Boon 
James W. Bouldin 
Matthias J. Bovee » 
John W. Browne 
Samuel Bunch 
Jesse A. Bynum 
William B. Calhoun 
Churchill C. Cambreleng 
Robert B. Campbell 
John Carr 
Zadok Casey 
John Chaney 
Reuben Chapman 
Graham H. Chapin 
Nath. H. Claiborne 



John F. H. Claiborne 
Jesse F. Cleveland 
John Coffee 
Walter Coles 
Henry W. Connor 
Thomas Corwin 
Robert Craig 
John Cramer 
Caleb Cushing 
Samuel Cushman 
John W. Davis 
Edmund Deberry 
Philemon Dickerson 
David Dickson 
Ulysses F. Doubleday 
George C Dromgoole 
Valentine Efner 
George Evans 
John Fairfield 
Dudley Farlin 
Samuel Fowler 
Richard French 
Jacob Fry, jr. 
Philo C. Fuller 
William K. Fuller 
John Galbraith 
James Garland 
Rice Garland 



Mr. Ransom H. Gillet 
Frances Granger 
Seaton Grantland 
William J. Grayson 
Elisha Haley 
Joseph Hall 
Thomas L. Hamer 
Edward A. Hannegan 
^ James Harlan 
™ Samuel S. Harrison 
Albert G. Harrison 
Albert'G. Hawes 
Micajah T. Hawkins 
Charles E. Haynes 
Joseph Henderson 
Samuel Hoar 
George W. Hopkins 
Benjamin C. Howard 
Elias Howell 
Edward B. Hubley 
Hiram P. Hunt 
Abel Huntington 
Adam Huntsman 
Joseph R. Ingersoll 
Samuel Ingham 
Jabez Jackson 
Leonard Jarvis 
Joseph Johnson 



44 



Cave Johnson 
Henry Johnson 
John W. Jones 
Benjamin Jones 
Andrew T. Judson 
William Kennon 
Daniel Kilgore 
George L. Kinnard 
John Klingensmith, jr. 
Amos Lane 
Gerrit Y. Lansing 
John Laporte 
Joab Lawler 
Abbott Lawrence 
George W. Lay 
Gideon Lee 
Joshua Lee 
Luke Lee 

Stephen B. Leonard 
Henry Logan 
George Loyall 
Edward Lucas, jr. 
Francis 6. Lyon 
Abijah Mann, j*. 
Job Mann 

Richard J. Manning 
Joshua L. Martin 
John Y. Mason 
William Mason 
Moses Mason, Jr. 
Samson Mason 



Mr. Abrara P. Maury 
William L. May 
Jonathan McCarty 
William McComa.s 
James J. McCay 
John McKeon 
Isaac McKim 
Charles F. Mercer 
Jesse Miller 
John J. Milligan 
William Montgomery 
Ely Moore 
W^illiara S. Morgan 
Henry A. Muhlenberg 
George W. Owens 
Sherman Page 
Gorham Parks 
William Patterson 
Franklin Pierce 
James A. Pearce 
Ebenezer Pettigrew 
Balie Peyton 
Lancelot Phelps 
Henry L. Pinckney 
Abraham Rencher 
John Reynolds 
Joseph Reynold? 
Eleazcr W. Ripley 
John Roane 
John Robertson 
James Rogers 



Ferdinand S. Schenck 
William Seymour 
William B' Shepard 
Augustine H. Shepperd 
Ebenezer J. Shields 
William N. Shinn 
Francis O. J. Smith 
David Spangler 

James Standefer 

John N. Steele 
Bellamy Storer 

Joel B. Sutherland 

John Taliaferro 
W^illiam Taylor 

Francis Thomas 

John Thomson 

Isaac Toucey 

George W. B. Towns 

James Turner 

Joel Turrill 

Joseph R. Underwood 

Aaron Vanderpoel 

Samuel F. Vinton. 

David D. Wagener 

Aaron Ward 

Daniel Ward well 

George C. Washington 

Lewis Williams 

Sherrod Williams 

Henry A. Wise. 



"Those who voted in the negative, are, 



Mr. John K. Griffin 

James H. Hammond 
Gideon Hard 
James Harper 
Abner Hazeltine 
William Hiesier 
Hopkins Holsey 
Henry F. Janes 
Levi Lincoln 

Thomas M. T. McKennan 
Jeremiah McLene 
Mathias Morris 



James Parker 
Stephen C. Phillips 
Francis W, Pickens 
David Potts, jr. 
John Reed 
David Russel 
William Slade 
Jonathan Sloane 
William Sprague, jr. 
Taylor Webster 
John White 
Elisha Whittlesrv. 



Mr. John Banks Mr. John K. Griffin Mr. 

Nathaniel B. Borden 
George N. Briggs 
John Calhoon 
George Chambers 
John Chambers 
William Clark 
Edward Darlington 
Harmar Denny 
Horace Everett 
John B. Forester 
Thomas Glascock 
George Grennell, jr. \ 

Quite a scene here eipned ; a dozen members rose to explain, and many crowd- 
ed round iMr. Johnsqn lo examine the Journal, who 3ielded the floor to IMr. 
Adams first, for ^n explanation. 

Mr, Ad.\ms asked j\lr. Johnson if he liad read the memorial which had been 
r&jected? ..■^ 

Mr. Johnson said he liad neither read nor seen the memorial, 

Mr. Ad.vms said tliat he had voted against the reception, because the language 
of the memorial was disrespectful to tlie House ; for it was impossible that he 
could have given such a vote, unless the memorial had contained improper lan- 
guage. 

Mr. Johnson said he thought that he could assign a better reason than flint. 

Mr. Gr.\nger rose to e.xplain, and Mr. Johnson 3'ieUled the floor. 

Mr. Granger said that his recollection was the same with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, (Mr. Adams,) that the memorial was discourteous in its terms, and 
was such a paper as should not be received. 

Mr. Johnson said, that from his knowledge of the gentleman who had desired 
to present tlie memorial, he felt assured that he would not have offered to present 



45 

a memorial which was not couched in respectful language ; but that fact could be 
ascertained from the memorial itself, and he desired the Clerk to withdraw it from 
the files, if it could be found, and send it to him. 

Mr. Lincoln rose to explain. He said he did not agree with his colleague, 
(Mr. Adams ;) that he had voted among the thirty-seven in the negative, but he 
was unwilling that the opinion should go forth, that " because the memorial con- 
tained improper language" he had not voted to lay on the table the motion to 
receive. His impression and his belief was that the language of the memorial 
was respectful, and the memorial harmless, and therefore he had voted against 
laying the motion on the table. 

Mr. Johnson said the remark of the gentleman was at least candid— '■'■ he be- 
lieved the memorial harmless, and, therefore, he voted against laying on the table." 

Mr. Pickens said that, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Johnson) had 
turned father confessor to the House, and as he was one of those recorded in the 
negative, he would explain that he had voted in the negative because the prop- 
osition to lay the motion to receive on the table amounted, virtually, to a recep- 
tion of the paper. 

Mr. Johnson said that the gentleman had made a strange confession, upon the 
meritorious efficacy of which, whether father confessor or not, he would not un- 
dertake to decide ; but he would say, that the genileman certainly deserved credit 
for the originality of the discovery, that a motion to lay " a motion to receive" 
upon the table, carried with it, or amounted to, a reception of the paper. It was 
the first time he had ever heard the idea advanced. To lay the motion on the 
table to receive was a positive rejection of the paper, 

Mr. Vanderpoel then rose to explan. He said he did not know whether he 
had a distinct recollection of what had occurred at that time ; but, he could say 
that he was always opposed to abolition and its excitement, and that he had voted 
to lay their memorials on the table. Abolition was one thing, the right of petition 
was another. He was in favor of settling this whole question, and never gave 
countenance to their agitations. 

Mr. Hunt, of New York, rose to explain, and said that he had voted in the 
affirmative, but not because he understood the petition was couched in direspcct- 
ful terms. 

Mr. CusHiNQ of Massachusetts, then rose and said that, by way of explanation, 
he would read from t!ie Journal, but from what part, or his comments thereon, 
was not distinctly heard by the reporter, from the confusion. 

Mr. Johnson resumed, and said : 

Mr. Speaker, I find I have fairly flushed a whole covey of members, and will 
take them one at a time, as Simon killed the wasps; yet if I find that sport too 
tedious and fatiguing, I will fire into the flock. The mirthful confusion in the 
House, and the conversation around me, as also the distance of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, (Mr. Gushing,) prevented my hearing what he said while he 
was on the floor. The point, if any, of the explanation of the gentleman from 
Troy, (Mr. Hunt,) I could not comprehend, perh?.ps did not hear. The gentleman 
from Canandaigua, I have alluded to, and may perhaps again. But a word is due 
to the gentleman from Kinderhook, (Mr. Vanderpoel.) I must be excused for dis- 
tinguishing him by the euphonious and poetic name of his residence, (or I know not 
how else to designate the various members of the Empire State who have explained. 
I mean the gentleman who, if he does not lead, at least blows the bugle note of his 
party, and stands on the outD^^sts of this Hall, ready to fire the alarm-gun, or call in 
any straggler from the train/Tbands. I was glad when the gentleman rose, and 
regretted he did not say more. 1 was anxious for him to come out into the deep 
water upon this question. I was anxious that some one who had the voice of the 
President should speak; that some one, who was reputed to stand high in the con- 
fidence of the Executive, might speak, that the echo of the sentiments entertained 



46 

at the White House might reverberate around these marble columns. We had, 
sir, indeed, the storm — all its fury, its loud thunder, its gusty wind, but there was 
no lightning — nothing to illumine the impenetrable darkness which shrouds the 
views and opinions of the Executive. The gentleman, with great earnestness and 
his usual ability, argued both sides of the question. He was opposed to the abolition- 
ists, but in favor ol" receiving their memorials; yet avoided the main question with 
his usual tact, of raising some other point of debate. But though silent in a great 
measure himself, the gentleinan was quite busy in giving the catch-word, and 
prompting others whilst they spoke. Some weeks ago, when the astute and sapi- 
ent gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cave Johnson) gave the gentleman from 
New York, (Mr. Vanderpoel,) while speaking, an authority to read, which proved 
to be against him, instead of for him, the gentleman admitted that he had flashed 
in the pan, to use his own figure. He then declared that he would never again fire 
oflf any ammunition but his own, and advised all others to do so likewise. Has 
the gentleman followed his own advice? What have we witnessed during the 
three days' speech of the member from North Carolina 1 He was continually sur- 
rounded by members producing ammunition for him, and none so conspicuous as 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Vandekpoel) in dog-earing books, and 
carrying files of newspapers, three feet square, for the use of that gentleman. It 
was a scene of amusement to me, to see the crowd of members around the gen- 
tleman, supplying him for three days with inaterieA for a speech; and I could but 
admire the indomitable fortitude and patience of the member from North Carolina, 
(Mr. Bynum,) as he adopted and appropriated to his use any thing and every thing 
which was offered to him. The scene was like one which I have witnessed on 
other occasions, if I may be allowed another zoological figure. 

Have you ever seen, Mr. Speaker, an elephant in a menagerie, surrounded by 
a crowd of spectators? I have seen that noble and monstrous animal, standing 
with a perfect circle around iiim of men, women, and children — tfill and short, 
well dressed and ragged. I have seen his wonderful performance, and that of the 
crowd around him. Whilst the animal would open his vast and ponderous jaws, 
some one would throw into them a pumpkin ; another a turnip-top ; a third a half- 
eatsn apple, or an orange-peel; a fourth a curled piece of sole-leather; whilst some 
ragged and mischievous urchin would throw in a lit segar, half consumed, or a dis- 
carded quid of tobacco. The enduring animal would gulp down the whole, flap 
his vast ears with delight, and imploringly extend his insinuating proboscis to the 
crowd — dirty urchin and all — as much as to say, renew again the pleasurable ex- 
citement. 

[The memorials were here handed to Mr, Johnson by the Clerk.*] 



* 2b the, honorable the House of Representatives of the United States of America ■ 

T The petition of the undersisned, citizens of Washington county, respectfully sheweth - 

That your petitioners would take no measures for the abolition of slavery which are not rea- 
sonable, peaceful, and sanctioned both by the constitution of our country and the dictates of an 
enlightened humanit}\ They do not, therefore, ask your honoral)le body to interfere with those 
laws which in the several States go to establish and regulate property in human beings. But, 
as Congress has exclusive power of legislation in and over the Distirict of Columbia, they ask 
for the exercise of that power totally and immediately to abolish slavery within said District. 
They ask it, because slavery is unjust; because it violates the rights of both God and man ; be- 
cause it corrupts public morals ; because it is oppressive to the honest free laborer, and tends to 
make labor disreputable as well as unprofitable; because it brands our nation before the world 
as avaricious, cruel, and hypocritical; because often, and even»si«fc the last session of Congress, 
persons have been imprisoned in the District on mere suspicion of their being runaways, and not 
being proved to be such, have been sold into perpetual slavery for \.\\e payment of their jail fees f 
because, while slavery continues, there must of necessity be a slave trade. Such trade has, by 
a solemn act of Congress, been declared piract when carried on upon the ocean ; your petition- 
ers do not understand why it should be less criminal on land; nor why one man should be licen- 



47 

Mr. Johnson said, in continuation : I find, sir, in glancing my eye over the 
memorials, that there are two of them, folded and pinned together, and that they 
are printed papers ; and, as I presupposed, are respectful in language. 

Mr. Adams rose to explain, and said that, upon reflection, he recollected that 
he had voted to exclude the memorials for a time, as some other business was 
pressing upon the House. 

Mr. Johnson resumed. I have listened to all the explanations which have been 
made, and wiiich I could hear ; but, with due respect for the candor and sincerity 
of the gentlemen, I hunibly conceive that their memory, like their reasoning, is 
greatly at fault. The true reason fur the vote had not yet, he humbly conceived, 
been assigned ; I will endeavor to give it, and I believe tiiat it will be found more 
satisfactory than any which has yet been offered. If this should be the case ; if the 
reasons which I shall offer (the mere facts in the case) should prove more satisfac- 
tory and patriotic, I hope gentlemen will cease to puzzle their ingenuity for any 
other. I hope that gentlemen will commend their praiseworthy vote, and on all 
similar occasions do likewise. 

Sir Isaac Newton has said, somewhere in his writings, that whenever you assign 
one good and adequate cause for an effect, you establish by it a sound principle 
of philosophy. Now, sir, what was the reason of that large and unprecedented 



sed to buy and sell the natives of our own country, while another is ignominiously hung for traf- 
ficking in the persons of foreigners. Yet, to such a magnitude has this trade grown under the 
exclusive legislation of Congress, that, if the citizens of the District themselves are to be be- 
lieved, the capital of our republic is one of the greatest slave marts in the world. ■-" 

Again, your petitioners ask the immediate abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, be- 
cause they deem it safe and practicable. Safe, because it would make friends of those who now 
have every reason to be our enemies; because the government of good laws is always safer than 
that of arbitrary will; because every innocent man, in his right senses, is fitter for freedom than 
for slavery ; because the experiment has been tried elsewhere, and has always been found to be 
safe — witness especially the cases of Antigua and Bermuda, where emancipation was immediate 
and unconditional, and the public peace is now so secure that the military guards formerly re- 
quired by slavery, have been entirely dispensed with; finally, because the nation has abundant 
power to enforce order, should there be any disposition to disturb it. Practicable, because it 
will only exchange an unnatural and forced system of labor for a natural and voluntary one. It 
will not annihilate the laborers nor their labor, but will merely make it necessary for the employ- 
ers to pay fair wages. Your petitioners will not take the absurd position that Congress cannot 
right the slaves without wronging the masters. How far the nation, as a participator with the 
masters in the guilt of wronging the slaves, ought to indemnify the former for their loss, your 
petitioners cheerfully leave it to your honorable bod}- to decide. But, whatever it may cost, the}' 
ask for the immediate freedom of the slaves. They ask for them the common protection as well 
as government of wise and equitable laws. 

Finally, your petitioners, disclaiming any design of interfering unconstitutionally or unwar- 
rantably with the concerns of others ; and with the kindest regard for the interests of their South- 
ern fellow-citizens, ask for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, because it will 
furnish a most salutary example to all slave-holders throughout the world, teaching them that an 
immediate abrogation and renunciation of the claim of property in man is safe and profitable, as 
well as honorable and just. They feel bound as men, as Christians, and as republicans, to urge 
this subject upon the attention of Congress ; and from the exercise of this constitutional right, as 
well as from the inalienable one of freely expressing their opinions, they can never cease till 
justice is done. [Signed by fifiy-one names.] 

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled : 

The undersigned petitioners, citizens of Washington county, Pennsylvania, respectfully rep- 
resent : 

That the enslavement of a large number of colored persons in the District of Columbia, and the 
existence there of an active domestic slave trade, are great political and moral evils ; repugnant to 
humanity and to the spirit of our free institutions. Our earnest prayer is, that you will imme- 
diately abolish slavery in the District, and provide such means of education and improvement, 
for the colored population there, as your wisdom and philanthropy may devise : So that they may 
not only have their physical bonds removed, but that their intellect and immortal spirits may be 
freed from their present degraded and fettered state. [Signed by eighty-one names.] 



48 

majority for rejecting abolition memorials 1 I will give it, and I call on the mem- 
ory of every one here to bear me proof; the vote was given in January, 1836, at 
a time when abolition excitement was convulsing the whole country. The aboli- 
tionists had been gradually increasing to the North ; each step of theirs was far- 
ther and bolder ; they had found bold and able champions on this floor to defend 
their memorials and to justify their excitement, to indirectly aid them in their fa- 
naticism and to protect them. The abolitionists sent their agents among the ne- 
groes of ihe South, and by every mail, and through every post office in the nation, 
scattered their inflammatory tracts and publications. They had succeeded in eflfect- 
ing an insurrection of the negroes in Virginia, and men, women, and children were 
murdered in their beds. I will not attempt to describe (he scenes of blood and 
barbarity which occurred ; it is enough to say, the South was alarmed to arms, and 
the stoutest advocates of abolition were appalled. The first feeling of the South was 
that of apprehension and alarm ; but tlu; second was deep and indignant condem- 
nation of the conduct of those who, under the bond of brotherhood, had counte- 
nanced and protected, instead of punishing or preventing, by penal laws, the dis- 
semination of doctrines so calamitous in their consequences. The tocsin of alarm, 
sounding throughout the South, called every man to arms, or to adopt measures of 
safety ; the neglected fire-arms were repaired, and the quiet solitude of the night 
was broken by the tramp of men in arms, as they traversed the country, or kept 
watch in our towns and villages. At such a time as this, and under such circum- 
stances, the resolution made would not be easily abandoned. Every man in the 
South said audibly, or tacitly resolved, " that the excitement of abolition must 
cease, or the Union must be dissolved." " If the General Government will not 
stay these inroads upon our rights, we will protect ourselves." But, sir, the panic 
and dismay was not confined to the South ; it was felt to the INorlh, and the sober 
judgment of the people began to estimate effects and consequences, as they re- 
covered from the intoxicating fever of fanaticism. Those who had made their re= 
ligion consist in humanity, philanthropy, and abolition, no longer had the hardi- 
hood to preach doctrines, which made the nearest road to Heaven to be through 
the wild-fires of insurrection, the slaughter of innocent women and children, and 
other dreadful scenes of intestine war. There began to be but one public senti- 
ment throughout the country. The President of the United States in his annual 
message to Congress, submitted but a short time before the vote was taken to 
which I have alluded, held the following language: 

"III connexion with these provisions in relation to the Post Office Department, I must also 
invite your attention to the painful excitement produced in the South, by attempts to circulate 
through the mails inflammatory appeals addressed to the passions of the slaves, in prints, and in 
various sorts of publications, calculated to stimulate them to insurrection, and to produce all the 
horrors of a servile war. 

"There is, doubtless, no respectable portion of our countrymen who can he so far misled as 
to feel any other sentiment than that of indignant regret at conduct so destructive of the harmony 
and peace of the country, and so repugnant to the principles of our national compact, and to the 
dictates of humanity and religion. Our happiness and prosperity essentially depend upon peace 
within our borders; and peace depends upon the maintenance, in good faith, of those compro- 
mises of the constitution upon which the Union is lounded. It is fortunate for the country that 
the good sense, the generous feeling, and the deep-rooted attachment of the people of the non- 
slaveholding States to the Union, and to their fellow- citizens of the same blood in the South, 
have given so strong and impressive a tone to the sentiments entertained against the proceedings 
of the misguided persons who have engaged in these unconstitutional and wicked attempts, and 
especially against the emissaries from foreign parts who have dared to interfere in this matter, as 
to authorize the hope that those attempts will no longer be persisted in. But if these expressions 
of the public will shall not be sufficient to effect so desirable a result, not a doubt can be enter- 
tained that the non-slaveholding States, so far from countenancing the slightest interference with 
the constitutional rights of the South, will be prompt to exercise their authority in suppressing, 
so far as in them lies, whatever is calculated to produce this evil. 

"In leaving the care of other branches of this interesting subject to the State authorities, to 
whom they properly belong, it is nevertheless proper for Congress to take such measures as will 
prevent the Post Office Department, which was destined to foster an amicable intercourse and 



49 

corrcsponJence between all the members of the confederacy, from being uscj as an instrument 
of an opposite character. The General Government, to which the great trust is confided of pre- 
serving inviolate the relations created among the States by the constitution, is especially bound 
to avoid in its own action any thing that may disturb them. I would, therefore, call ihe special 
attention of Congress to the subject, and respectfully suggest the propriety of passing such a law 
as will prohibit, under severe penalties, the circulation in the Southern States, through the 
mails, of incendiary publications intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection." 

Such, Mr. Speaker, was the language of the President of llie United States, 
occasiotied by the violent excitement tiien existing. And in the same session 
the Postmaster General, in his annual communication, asked for legislative aid to 
suppress the insurrectionary communications sent through the mail, and calculated 
to excite servile war. He says : 

"A new question has arisen in the administration of this Department. A number of individ- 
uals have established an association in the Northern and Eastern States, and raised a large sum 
of money for the purpose of effecting the immediate abolition of slavery in the Southern States. 
One of the means resorted to has been the printing of a large mass of newspapers, pamphlets, 
tracts, and almanacs, containing exaggerated, and in some instances false, accounts of the treat- 
ment of slaves, illustrated with cuts, calculated to operate on the passions of the colored men, 
and produce discontent, assassination, and servile war. These they attempted to disseminate 
throughout the slaveholding States by the agency of the public mails. 

"As soon as it was ascertained that the mails contained these productions, great excitement 
arose, particularly in Charleston, S. C, and, to ensure the safety of the mail in its progres.s 
southward, the postmaster at that place agreed to retain them in his office until he could obtain 
instructions from the Postmaster General. In reply to his ajipeal, he was informed that it was a 
subject upon which the Postmaster General had no legal authority to instruct him. 'I'he ques- 
tion again came up from the postmaster at New York, who had refused to send the papers by the 
steamboat mail to Charleston, S. C. He was also answered that the Postmaster General pos- 
sessed no legal authority to give instructions on the subject; but as the undersigned had no doubt 
that the circumstances of the case justified the detention of the papers, he did not hesitate to say 
so. Important principles are involved in this question, and it merits the grave consideration of 
all departments of the Government. 

"It is universally conceded that our States are united only for certain purposes. There are 
interests in relation to which they are believed to be as independent of each other as they were 
before the constitution was formed. The interest which the people of some of the States have 
in slaves, is one of them. No State obtained, by the Union, any right whatsoever over slavery 
in any other State ; nor did any State lose any of its power over it within its own borders. On 
this subject, therefore, if this view be correct, the States are still independent, and may fence 
round and protect their interest in slaves by such laws and regulations as, in their sovereign will, 
they may deem expedient. 

"Nor have the people of one State any more right to interfere with this subject in another 
State, than they have to interfere with the internal regulaiions, rights of property, or domestic 
police, of a foreign nation. If they were to combine, and send papers among the laboring popu- 
lation of another nation, calculated to produce discontent and rebellion, their conduct would be 
good ground of complaint on the part of that nation ; and in case it were not repressed by the 
United States, might be, if perseveringly persisted in, just cause of war. The mutual obligations 
of our several States to suppress attacks by their citizens on each other's reserved rights and inter- 
ests would seem to be greater, because, by entering into the Union, they have lost the right of 
redress which belongs to nations wholly indi pendent. Whatever claim may be set up or main- 
tained to a right of free discussion, within their own borders, of the institutions and laws of other 
communities over which they have no rightful control, few will maintain that they have a right, 
unless it be obtained by compact or treaty, to carry on such discussions within those commu- 
nities, either orally or by the distribution of printed papers, particularly if it be in violation of 
their peculiar laws, and at the hazard of their peace and existence. The constitution of the 
United States provides that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and 
immunities of citizens in the several States;" but this clause cannot confer on the citizens of one 
State higher privileges and immunities in another than the citizens of the latter themselves pcs- 
sess. It is not easy, therefore, to perceive how the citizens of the Northern States can possess or 
claim the privilege of carrying on discussions within the Southern States, by the distribution 
of printed papers, which the citizens of the latter are forbidden to circulate by their own laws. 

"Neither does it appear that the United States acquired by the constitution any power what- 
soever over this subject, except the right to prohibit the importation of slaves after a certain date. 
On the contrary, that instrument contains evidences that one object of the Southern States, in 
adopting it, was to secure to themselves a more perfect control over this interest, and cause it to 
be respected by the sister States. In the exercise of their reserved rights, and for the purpose of 
4 



50 

protecting this interest, and ensuring the safety of their people, some of the States have passed 
laws prohibiting, under heavy penalties, the printing or circulation of papers like those in ques- 
tion, within their respective territories. It has never been alleged that these laws are incompati- 
ble with the constitution and law? of the United States. Nor does it seejit possible that thev can 
be so, because they relate to a subject over which the United Slates cannot rightfully assume any 
control under that constitution, either by law or otherwise. 

"If these principles be sound, it will follow that the State laws on this subject are, within the 
scope of their jurisdiction, the supreme laws of the land, obligatory alike on all persons, whether 
private citizens, officers of the State, or functionaries of the (ieneral Government. 

"The constitution makes it ihe duty of the United States " to protect each of the States 
against invasion, and on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive, (when the Legisla- 
ture cannot be conveneil,) against domestic violence." There is no quarter whence domestic 
violence is so much to be apprehended in some of the Slates, as from the servile population 
operated upon by mistaken or designing men. It is to obviate danger from this quarter, that 
many of the State laws, in relation to the circulation of incendiary papers, have been enacted. 
Without claiming for the General Government the power to pass laws' prohibiting discussions of 
any sort, as a means of [irotecting Stales from domestic violence, it may safely be assumed that 
the United States have no right, throu.;h their officers or departments, knowingly to be instru- 
mental in (;roducing, within the several States, the very nii.-chicf which the conslitution com- 
mands them to repress. It would be an extraordinary construction of the powers of the General 
Government, to maintain that they are bound to aflbrd the agency of their mails and post offices 
to counteract the laws of the Slates, in the circulation of papers calculated to proiluce domestic 
violence, when it would, at the same time, be one of their most important constitutional duties 
to protect the Stales against the natural, if not necessary, consequences 'produced by that very 
agency. 

"The posilion assumed by this Department is believed to have produced the effect of withhold- 
ing its agency, generally, in giving circrdalion to the obnoxious papers in the Southern States. 
Whether it be necessary more eflc-ctually to prevent, by legislative enactments, the use ot the 
mails as a means of evading or violating the constiluiioiial laws of the Slates, in reference to ihis 
portion of their reserved rights, is a question which, it appears to the undersignrd, may be sub- 
mitted to Congress, upon a statement of the facts, and their own knowledge of the public nc- 
cessit}'. 

Such was the strong appeal mndo hv the Postmaster General, enforced as I have 
shown by tho message of the President. But, sir, the deeds of carnat^e which 
had been done, the blood of innocence which had been s[)ilt, spoke more eloquent- 
ly to the nation, and the represenialives of tlie people met here wiiii the sohnin 
iin;)ressioi) on their minds. The spirit of patriotism was whispering to their 
hearts; and reason, which had been rejected befote, began again to control iheir 
judgment. Public duty and public policy alike invoked this House to reject the 
memorial, which experience had shown to be fraught with so much danger, and 
one hundred and seventy-six members recorded their names upon the journal as 
has been shown. 

JSiich were the considerations wiiich prompted the rejeciioii of abolition memo- 
rials in 1836, and such a state of things would, I am quite sure, induce the same 
gentlemen to vote again for their n^jection. But, sir, the course which gentlemen 
pursue in debate, the 3[)peals which they address to the prejudices and [)assions 
of the people, may sooner or later effect another excitement of similar calamitous 
consequence. But if another insurrection break out, let me tell gentlemen that, 
though it may be as quickly suppressed, it will not be in their power so easily to 
quiet the alarms of the South. I'hey will not remain passive under machinntions 
which are calculated to give their homes to the flames, or to produce such a state 
of things as occurred in St. Domingo, the happy condition of which Island has 
been alluded to in this debate, by one member, with a sort of fiendlike triumph.* 



* Under the garb of pretended reliffion, the abolitionists would desecrate with blood the altar 
of the constitution, and this, too, in the most insidious form, by sendino:, in a secret and stealthy- 
manner, their inflammatory tracts, appeals, and miserable atients, in various disguises, among ihe 
slaves of the South. Although a party to the covenant of the constitution, they are willing to 
outrage every written and moral law. These men might learn better religion than ihey practise 
from the followers of Mahomet ; and the South could more safely rely upon the promises and in 



51 

Mr. Speaker, every debate on this floor of the rbaracler of the pmsent is an attack 
upon tlie foiindalions of tiie Govern.nient ; every abolilion sppeth wiiich is niiide 
here dissolves, in some degree, that kindly feeling, that friendly relation, which is 
the sirongest cement of the Union ; and <x revolution must be the consequence. The 
public mind, once made to contemplate such an event as probable, will, fur slight 
cause, act on the suL'gesiion of its necessity. The fears already awakened will 
be magnified; and to relieve tiiemselves from this feverish anxiety, the people of 
the Soutii must seek peace and sucurity by dissolving political connexion with those 
who, by thus continuing to siip[)ort the cause of abolition, show a recklessness of 
the peace and quiet of the South, and a disregard of all covenants under the con- 
stiiuiion. Sir, I repeat to tliese gentlemen our security depends in a great dejjree 
upon their non-interference. They have no riyht to meddle with the question of 
slavery ; and 1 utterly deny the right of this House to discuss the subject. It is 
a violation of your sworn duly ; for you have sworn to support slavery when you 
took the oath to support the constitution. You first delude yourselves with the 
belief that the question is harmless, although you have seen its evils, and then 
strive to a[)pease us with declamation about the right of petition, and tell us that 
it is only the right in ihe abstract that you defend ; for only let the memorials be 
received, and you will not ask that what they pray for be granted. Sir, 1 repeat 
that an avowal that only one member will vote for abolition is a pregnant and un- 
answerable argument in favor of rejecting all papers of the kind. If the right to 
petition was char and beyond debate, would not the declaration, that but one man 
could be found, in forty years, sf> reckless as to vote for the prayer of the [)eii- 
tioners, be a conclusive reason that these aboliiion memorials should not be received 1 
And how does the force of the consideration increase, when the attempt to fcrce 
the reception and consideration (hdays other business of the nation and endangers 
the very existence of the Union 1 You gild over "he evil that we may not see tlW: 
interior, while we are poison(!d by your quackery. You are for introducintr your 
Trojan horse into our citadel, that armed men within may cut our throats at night 



the fiilelity to covenants in the followers of the Prophet, although (heir faith is, "that the fight- 
ini; for religion is an act of obedience to God." But they are brave enough to front danger them- 
selves, and aie too manly to countenance secret murder and assasshiation by others lo propagate 
their religion. 

In the beginning of the seventh century, when Abubekr succeeded Mahomet with the title of 
calijih, and commenced the conquest of Syria, and sent his army forward, he closed his instruc- 
tions to his general by saving: " When you m lUe any covenant or article, stand to it, and be as 
good as your word." They overran Syria and laid siege to Damascus. The Damascenes capit- 
ulated with .-Mm Obeidah, one of the Saracen generals, to pay Irilmte and still enjoy their reli- 
gi<m. The articles were .signed by the [lartie.s. As Obeidah entered one of the gates by capitu- 
lation, Caled, his principal asfO(iate, who was iii:norant what his companion had done, forced 
tlic gates on the opposite side and ordered a general massacre. Obeidah meeting his furious com- 
panions in the middle of the city ordered them to desi.-t, iiiforming them of the con(ii(ions which 
he had entered into, staling to (Jaled, who preferred a general slaughter, as he had forced 
the city, "that, when I had made an agreement, I did not think that you would ever have at- 
tempted to make it void. But you shall not make it void; for [ have given all the^e people my 
protection, and that in the name of God and his prophet: and all tha, were with me liked it and 
approved it, and we are not accustomed to depart from our word." Those who had taken a part 
of the city by storm still persisting in their slaughter, he threw himself between the Christians 
and his savage tribes, and bade them desist. The covenant was maintained ; and Damascus, to 
this day, contains a population of twenty thousand Christians. More than a thousand years have 
rolled round, and this covenant is still preserved by the .Mahometans; vvhd.-t hardly a half a cen- 
tury his elipsed since the ratification of the consiitution, and these faithless men of the North 
give evidence to the world that their word, their promise, their covenant is less sacred than that 
of the Mahometan. 

How touch blood has been shed — how much perfidy has been inflicted — how much misery has 
the human family suffered by fanaticism, under disguise of religion 1 Let the red and number- 
less pages of history answer. 



52 



when we are least suspecting. You are contending for an abstraction, which yon 
say is useless if it is <;ranted ; wiiilst the defence itself is pregnant with incalcula- 
ble mischief. You are wildly [)Ui suing a phantom, when each step forces you to 
trample on rights guarantied by the constitution. 

Mr. Speaker, if I wbm to ask these gentlemen if there is any principle sound 
in moral philosophy, which has no good in iis apf)lication or in its end, ihey 
would answer in the negative. In |)hilosophy, in morals, in ethics, in legislation, 
nothing can be useful that has not utility and benefit in its end. Apply that prin- 
ciple to the present case, and you will find that all repudiate ihe end, which the 
means you use would force upon you. If the end, then, which the abolitionists 
seek is so mischievous, you should abandon the means so as not lo reach the evil 
you say you would deplore. A man may he visionary and theoretical in private 
life, and not perhaps do much mischief; but, in public life, all his acts should be 
utilitarian. Weakness in a public man is a vice, for vice and weakness differ 
only in the intention : their effect is alike niischievous. A man who is too weak 
or timid to do right, does a necalive wrong, which becomes a positive evil, and 
often causes active wrong and injustice. Those who support the abolitionists are 
responsible; those who are too supine or timid to use any means or power which 
they may possess to stay their vicious attempts, become either active or silent 
participators, and arc almost equally responsible. By the course which gen- 
tlemen pursue, they not only weaken the bonds of union, but inflict evils upon 
the slave. They force the slaveholding States to place new restraints upon him. 
His privileges are circumscribed, and his inental culture neglected, because you 
make speeches which would endanger the life of his master were he to read. 
Yes, sir, I say to these gentlemen, you arc the tyrants of the slave, while the 
censure of his harsh treatment falls upon us; you are the cause of the great de- 
gree of ri^or towards him, whil.U you pretend to have sympathy for him; you arc 
re-ponsible for the harshness of the laws of the South, because you are responsi- 
ble for the excitement of the North. Instead of meeting this question at home, 
you transfer the scene of strife lo this Hall. You avoid the question where it 
should be met, and censure us because we tell you you have no right to embroil 
us with the insubordination of the citizens of your own States. You make us 
vour adversaries, because you are too timid to encounter your own turbulent con- 
stituents. You wish 10 please both but satisly neither. The abolitic.nisis go for 
universal emancipation ; and every morning this House is flooded wiili the evi- 
dence of the fact through their papers; yet you say you will compromise by only 
defending such petitions as claim to liberate slaves in the District of Columbia. 
You tell the South, but let their petitions be received and you will then unite in 
opposing their request. You defend abolition by defending their [)eiitions, and 
to avoid the true question you adopt the Machiavelian maxim, that you can change 
a measure by changing its name, and sanctify an odious principle by giving it a 
popular term. By defending the right of petition, you virtually advocate the end 
and nieasure of the petition, and the whole question of slavery in the South nar- 
rows down to the issue which you make here. We know it, whilst you will not 
admit it; for we know if you succeed here, abolition follows by the same means 
tliroughout the South. I am for meeting the question on the ramparts of the 
constitution ; for 1 believe the slightest inroad overthrows the Union. The Dis- 
trict of Columbia will not stand alone or unaided in tiiis question. Two hundred 
and fifty members were never intended to be set over the |)eople of this District 
as absolute masters, tyrants, disposers of the rights of property, and to be govern- 
ed by no restraint in the exercise of their capricious wills, or speculative theories. 
The people of this District never will give you jurisdiction over their property as 
a proof of their confidence in your legislative wisdom. You may ostentatiously 
claim the power, but you dare never atten)pt lo exercise it. Ask for the jurisdic- 
tion, as one of old asked for fire, earth, and water; ask, too, as one of old did, for 



53 

tlie arms of the people, and you will be answered, as the head of that little republic 
which contained about liie population of this District answered, " Come and take 
them." Sir, the Persian went with his hrn)ed thousands, and left their bones as 
monuments to Grecian valor and to Grecian glory. 

Let gentlemen remember it was not the actual oppression of Great Britain that 
caused the war of the Revolution ; it was the assuni|)ti(jn of a riahi to lax, not the 
miserable pittance itself which was demanded. Common blood, common inter- 
ests, united the people of the two countries ; but the assumption of a right tore 
asunder the ligaments which united the thirteen colonies to the kinsidom of the 
mother country. 1 ask gentlemen to reflect before they set up a right of juris- 
diction over slave property, if they may not cause similar results. The South 
and the North too are united by common blood and commun interests, but the 
riglits of a bold and fearless |)eople are not to be trifled with. Take warning by 
the past, for you know not how quickly you may elTect another separation. De- 
ceive not yourselves that the people of the South are divided by political feelings; 
on this question they all feel and think alike, and, if you force the necessity, they 
will all act alike. JMr. Speaker, 1 cannot separate an abolitionist from those 
who defend their course, without a refinement which belongs only to a casuist. 
The distinction which gentlemen draw is theoretical. The application of their 
remarks goes really to a defence of abolition, whilst they re|)udiate all the mis- 
chief which it f)riiduces. They agonize us with their speeches, yet rebuke us if 
we complain. They would keep our minds on a Procrustean bed of anguisii, to 
be measured only by iheir own capricious dimensions. But if all this is sport 
to them, in the language of liio fable, it is death to us. Sir, for one I repeat, I 
am tired with this siren song of peace, which pleases but to delude, and charms 
but to destroy. 

But, Mr. Speaker, while I have thus freely and frankly expressed my senti- 
ments in reference to the conduct of those who agitate the question of abolition, I 
rejoice to know that there are men in the North who have the independence to 
speak in vindication of the South and the constitution, and to disabuse the public 
mind of misapprehension on the subject of slavery. Among the distinguished in- 
dividuals to whom I allude, Mr. Austin, of Boston, is eminently conspicuous, and 
1 beo leave here to quote the followinij remarks from his review of the Rev. Dr. 
Channing's letter on the slavery question : 

'•We, of New England, are as essentially parties to the actual existence of slavery as the 
slaveholders themselves; because wc have secured to ourselves, and do actually partake the fruits, 
profits, and cnjiwrnpnts of slavery, and can, therefore, have no moral right to interfere vvilh our 
associates in crime, until we have first washed our own hands of the defiling iniquity ! 

" Our political duties are regulated by the constitution of the United States, and are to be de- 
termined by correct views of the principles and doctrines it contains. 

'• 'i'his constitution recognises the existence of slavery in the United States. It provides for 
the continuance and security of the institution. It holds us as parties to it. Most of us have 
sworn to support this constitution. All of us are bound to do so, whether under oath or not. 
We enjoy its blessings. We partake of the advantages, which we exacted in return for the con- 
cessions we have made. We possess what we purchased in tiie freshness and fulness of our 
contract, and it is a base and false morality, or rather a shameless and disgraceful fraud, which 
hypocTilically assumes the garb of piety, to cheat our fellow-citizens out of the price. 

" The morality which, under these circumstances, enforces our interference with the Southern 
institutions of slavery, is the moralit}' of teaching us to violate our solemn contracts; it is the 
morality of sharpening that huckstering ingenuity which has been too justly ascribed to the 
yankee pedler, of holding to both ends of the bargain. 

" There is no higher morality than that which enjoins fidelity to contracts — fidelity in the 
spirit as well as the letter; and no meaner chicanery or frand than that which attempts to 
creep from their obligation by keeping the word of promise to the ear and breaking it to the 
hope. We need not enumerate the provisions of the constitution already adverted to in order 
to ascertain our duty as faithful citizens, because there is a broader and more expansive principle 
of honesty. We know what was intended at the time of the contract. We know if a claim 
to the interference now urged by Dr. C. and the abolitionists had been proposed and insisted on 
in the convention, no constitution could have been formed. 



54 

" But the constitution exist?, and we are at this moment reaping its advantages, and yet it is 
seriously proposed, as a matter of moral duty, so to interfere witli its csiublishments, as to de- 
prive one of the contracting parties of the advuniagcs it secures to them. M e eschew all such 
molality. 7 i c u 

" But this interference is only by ''moral suasion." It only goes to persw^de the fcoulh- 
erner to enfranchise his slaves. ' An excuse this, the very quintessence ot Jesuitism. We ex- 
hibit the slaveholder to the world as a thief, a robber, a spoiler of oiher men's projjerty— grossly 
guilty of immorality and crime. We venture to aHirm that each one is marked by a (elon'a 
«' brand," which ihe fame and talents of the most exalted of iheir statesmen cannot conceal; we 
send forth our missionaries upon their borders to play upon the passions of the servile class, and 
encouraije them to " seek through blood and slaughter their long lost liherty." We alarm their 
peacefufcitizens in the same way ours would he alarmed if a menagerie was to be turned liose 
on the population in our streets; we compel them to change iheir course of conduct in self-de- 
fence, to curtail the privileges, to restrict the indulgences of the slaves, lest insuneelion should 
follow causes naturallv calculated, hut not indeed intended, to produce it; we destroy, by the 
natural action of human passions, all kindne.ss, sympathy, and fiiendship, between the two great 
sections of American citizens. We excite our own people into a detestation of the immoral 
South, and spread broadcast the seeds of strife, jealousy, and revenge, and all this we call a 
moral suasion— deep reverence for the laws of (rod, conuiianded by pure morality, kindness, 
good-will, and brotherly love — the obligation of duly on our part, and great tenderness for the 
human soul. If it is not calculated to bring religion into scorn, it is only because we take our 
choice between fanaticism and hypocrisy. 

"These considerations confirm our opinion that citizens of the free States have no right to 
interfere with a Southern domestic institution. To deal in the j)ioducts of slave labor is to up- 
held and permit it. We are under no contract, and no political obligation to deal in these pro- 
ducts. We have increased to an immense extent our demand for these products during our ig- 
norance and delusion on the sui ject of slavery. New lands have been planted, new Stales have 
been peopled, and the money we have paid for cotton has been expended in the domestic slave 
trade, in separating families, and in encouraging the- breeding of slaves. 

«« By our over demand, the value of slaves in the United States, which was in 18-10 but five- 
hundred millions ot dollars, has now increased to twelve hundred millions. Our factories for the 
employment of this labor, are scattered all over the country. We boast of them. Our Secre- 
tary of State has reported the investment of our capital in the State of Massachusetts alone to 
be about sixteen millions of dollars, and our annual dealing with one single article, the produit 
of slave labor, to he to the extent of seventeen rr.illions more, and to employ the direct agency 
of twci.ty-one thousand citizens. Of the navigating interest concerned, we have an equal 
amount, "and of the indirect connexion which it has in every departitient of industry, we can 
form no estimate. But this great amount is the wages of sin and iniquity. All this we . fTer to 
the monstrous Moloch of slavery. Our happiness is bound up in it. It is the prosperity and 
civilization of life as we have erroneously believed, but now we find it is the deadly iruit in the 
garden of our Eden. We may partake of it no more. 

" The tremendous sacrifice thus demanded of us is nothing, absolutely nothing, to that which 
we demand of our fellow citizens of the South. But we put it to the conscience of our own 
citizens, and to the letter-writer himself, whether we are not as much engaged in supporting 
slavery as they are ; whether if we have discovered its sin and they have not, we can enjoy its 
profits and rail at them for not breakiirg it up 1" 

w'^ucli, Mr. Speaker, are the views of the writer whom I have quoted, and 1 anj 
Inppy to believe that they are the views of a large portion of the well-thinking 
and well-disposed citizens of the North. The three millions of slaves held in the 
t<0Lithern Slates are the principal ca|)ital of the people, and the means upon which 
depend the wealth and resources of the South, whilst they l'urni:-.h the. principal 
staple of the manufacturine enterprise and industry of the North, But if the 
people of the North are really in earnest; if they find that hy the contiact under 
the constitution they are aiding and abetting the Sooth in maintaining the institu- 
tion of slavery ; if they have discovered that the institution is a wrong and a sin, 
and that as a moral and religions people they cannot any longer consent to aid 
and abet its continuance; if they are tired of the union; if their family and ours, 
their servants and ours, cannot agree, let them tell ii.s so frankly and in good 
brotherhood, and we will say, as did one of old, " You go to the right and we will 
take the left. You go to the left and we will take the right. Our blessing will 
be upon you, hut let us part in peace." Be honest and he manly. Tell ns you 
cannot live with us, but do not instilt us with your mentorials and with your 
speeches. Yes, sir, let them peaceably, quietly, and firmly exercise the powers 



55 

which belong to them. Let them propose the means, and prepare the way, for a 
dissolution of that political government under which they can no longer conscien- 
tiously live. Let no memories of the past or hopes of the future divert them from 
their undertaking. Let them forget tlie adnionitions of all past times — the histo- 
ries of all other Governments. Let them shut their eyes to the state of things 
wiiich existed before our present constitution was formed. Let them fjrget by 
whom and under what circumstances it was formed. " That," says the eloquent 
writer whom I iiave quoted, "an entire revolution in the commercial and manu= 
faciuring establishments would be the consequence; that bankruptcy, desolation, 
and ruin would spread themselves over the country; that free labor would have 
little employment; that out of idleness and destitution would spring up a vast har- 
vest of pauperism and crime ; and that, in fact, civilization would go backward, 
are to be denied only by the obstinacy of fansticism." But when the Union shall 
have been dissolved, when the star-spangled banner shall be rent in twain, when 
the advocates of false philosophy and false humanity shall stand on the ruins of their 
manufactories, in the deserted marts of commerce or neelected fields of agricul- 
tur«^, what they shall have gained in their crusade of fanaticism they will learn by 
bitter experience. 

To the intimations that have been urged in this debate, that we cannot be zeal- 
ous friends to civil liberty because we are slaveholders, I will not consume more 
time by giving a reply, but will give the opinion of one disinterested and compe- 
tent to judge. 

JNlr. I3urke, in a speech delivered in Parliament, in March, 1775, expresses 
himself thus : 

"Where slavery is established in any part of the world, those who are free are by far the 
most proud and jealous of their freedom. Freedom is to them not only an enjoyment, but a 
kind of rank, and jirivilege. Nut seeing there that freedom (as it is in countries where freedom 
is a common blessing) may be united with much al'ject toil, with great misery, with all the ex- 
terior of servitude, liberty looks among them like something that is more noble and liberal. Thus 
the people of the Southern colonies of America are much more strongly, and with a higher and 
more stubborn spirit, attached to liberty than those to the northward. Such vi'ere all the ancient 
commonwealths; such were our Gothic ancestors; such, in our days, are the Poles; and such 
will be all masters of slaves who are not slaves themselves." 

Mr. Speaker, I shall not discuss, as others have done, whether slavery is or is 
not a moral, social, or political evil. That question may be discussed in the Slates 
and in the Slate Legislatures. Nor will I inquire vThether the States, in which 
it now exists, have been benefited or injured by it ; but, sir, I do not hesitate 
to express the belief that the African race have been benefited by the insti- 
tution of slavery in this country. 1 will not attempt to give an opinion tipon 
the inscrutable ways of Providence; but an) justified in the belief that He 
often acts upon human affairs by the agency of human means. Who, in this age, 
is prophet to attempt to foretell the inscrutable ways of Providence? How long, 
and for what reasons they are held in servitude 1 Who can divine his vast plans of 
human punishment or huntan amelioration 1 or who can fully anticipate his vast 
and endless systems, which seem to puzzle the human judgnient, but which move 
in h.armony and equipoise to the great results? 

" Purblind man sees but part of the ch<iin — 

The nearest link — his eyes not reaching 

To that equal beam which poises all above." 

When, sir, the philanthropist tells us to plant our colonies on the coast of Africa, 
that, as an eloquent writer expresses it, " the tide of civilization maj' be rolled 
back upon that benighted region," the very enthusiasm of his language marks the 
inappreciable improvemen-ts which slavery has wrought upon the character and 
condition of the negro. The African, at home, was but one degree removed from 
the animals of the forest — but little stiperior to the ourangoutang ; without a senti- 
ment of moral restraint; without a feeling save the instinct and promptings of na- 
ture. He was transplanted to this country, by force, it is true, but in total ignor- 



56 

ancc of moral law and the benign influences of religion. Reared among the 
whites, his intellect has been enlarged, his vicious propensities brought under the 
subordination of reason and the nirral law. He has become civilized, humanized, 
and christianized. The philanthropists have sent him back a changed being, with 
a knowledge of law, and moral and religious duties. Three hundred miles of the 
African coast liave been rcpeopled with such inhabitants, who may, in the progress 
of time, change the nature of their own wild race at hon)e, and make all Africa a 
land of civil and religious liberty. The schoolmaster, the statesman, and the mi.n- 
ister of religion have gone with them, and what has been the result 1 The officiaf 
reports of the Colonization Society inform us of 

"The foundation of an empire in the Commonwealth of Liheria. There it is — on the roast 
of Africa, a little north of the Equator, in the central regions of African barbarism, and of the 
slave trade. There are four colonies and twelve Christain settlements, dotting: a coast of about 
300 miles, extending their domain, by fair neg<ili;ition, back into the interior and along the At- 
lantic shore, the whole incorporated into a federal republic, after the model of our own, with like 
institutions, civil, literary, and religious, and composed of Africans and descendants of Africans, 
most of whom were emancipated from bondage in this country for the purpose, some of whom 
Were recaptured from slave ships, and a small jjart of whom are adopted natives that have come 
in to join them. There is Christian civilization and the government of law ; there is a civil juris- 
prudence and polity ; tliere are courts and mugistrates, judges and lawyers; there are numerous 
Christian churches, well supplied with ministers of the Gosj)cl; thire are schools, public libra- 
ries, and a respectable system of public education : there is a public press and two journals, one 
vsreekly, and one semi-monthly ; there arc rising towns and villages; there are the useful trades 
and mechanic arts, a productive agriculture and increasing commerce; in their harbors are to be 
found ships trading with Europe and America, and the exjiorts are increasing from year to year; 
and ail this the creation of somewhat loss than twenty years — an achievement of which there is no 
parallel in history. Not one of the first settlements of our own country, at the IN'orlh or South, 
ever accomplished so much in so short a time ; not one of them that did not sutler more in its 
early history by sickness, and famine, and war, and other disasters incident to colonization. In 
a word, they constitute the germ of a rising and prosperous, and, peradventure, of a mighty em- 
pire. And though last, yet not least, they have done more for the suppression of the slave trade 
than Great Britain with her Spanish treaty, and all the world put together. Thcj' have done 
much in this cause; they began the right way; while all else that has been done, by all the 
world, i.s literally worse than nothing. And these deeds are the product — the work of the Amer- 
can Colonization Society. 

" But what has abolition done! It has agitated the country — that is beyond a question. But 
has it redeemed one slave? We have never heard of one. It may have enticed some away, 
and concealed fugitives in violation of the laws of the land. We know that it has done this; 
and that this is one of the modes of its operation. 

" But what has abolition done 1 It has uttered many hard words, called hard names, and ex- 
cited much bad feeling. Has it made any advances towards persuading the slave States to aban- 
don slavery ] Let Judge Lynch answer the question. Has it united the North to join in the 
movement? Three-fourths, we imagine, perhaps more, have been forced by this agitation into 
a dead set against it. Has it inclined the ear of the public authorities of the nation to listen to 
its demands ? Look at the doings of Congress in answer to abolition j)etitions. 

"But what has it done? It has produced no small excitation in the religious world, and then 
jumped over the pale that divides the two, to stir up the political ; it has made schism in the 
church and schism in the State; it has sent adrift Christian pastors who refused their creed, and 
gone earnestly to work to dislodge the legislators and magistrates of the land that stand in their 
way ; it has cast a tire-brand on the floor of Congress, and reviled the Senators of the nation; it 
has done much to array the North against the South, and the South against the North ; it has 
divided the nation, divided States, divided counties and election districts; divided towns, cities, 
villages, neighborhoods, and families ; separated friends and made them enemies. 

" But what has abolition done ? Has it ameliorated the condition of the slave ? On the con- 
trary, it has made fast his fetters, increased the vigilance and rigor of his discipline, abridged the 
means of his intellectual and moral improvement, and aggravated the severity of his bondage. Has 
it softened the temper of the slaveholder? On the contrary, it has hardened his heart, and bar- 
red the avenues to his conscience. Has it inclined hiin to listen to reason, and regard the voice 
of persuasion ? He points to the bulwark of the national constitution, and says, ' We know 
our rights;' and that is the end of argument. 

" Has abolition relieved the condition of our free colored people, secured them more advantages^ 
or made them more happy ? Those States which were before inclined to extend the franchise in 
favor of this race, are now inclined to abridge it, and Pennsylvania has actually done so. They 
had a sympathy before which they have not now; they are discontented and unhappy ; they are 



57 

made jealous of the whites, and the whites of them ; they are not so good servants or citizens ; 
the line of caste is more deeply drawn, and the barrier that separates the two races made higher 
and stronger; they are excluded from our schools and seminaries; and, but for abolition, we have 
good reason to say and believe, that all their privileges, social, civil, and political, would have 
been gradually extended, as their character should improve. 

"And where is the spirit of abolition, in the old and pure sense of the term, which, a little while 
since, was fast reviving in the more northern of the slave States, and spreading over the South, 
growing upon the soil of slavery, and advocated with eloquent tongue by the slaveholder himself ! 
Where are the abolition strains of the Old Dominion, and of her foster child in the West, that 
began to be heard in their legislative halls 1 Silenced — all silenced, since the abolition move- 
ment of the North began to interfere with their concerns, and to demand what they were dis- 
posed to grant while left to their own discretion and constitutional rights. They saw a storm of 
violence coming from the IN'orth, and a flood of revolution lifting up its waves to overwhelm 
them, and they turned and said, ' We must take care of ourselves.' Such are some of [the fruits 
of modern abulition." 

I would liere, said Mr. Johnson, most gladly conclude my remarks, wliicli iiave 
been protracted lo a length far beyond what I intended when I first gained the 
floor, by the growing magnitude and importance of the question, and the consider- 
ation and attention of this House, for whicii I fear 1 have poorly requited ; but 
gentlemen have brought the names of the two candidates for the next Presidency 
into this debate, and their opinions on the question of slavery and abolition. 
The political qiiestions of the day should never he connected with this delicate 
and exciting subject ; but if gentlemen will force such a discussion on the House, 
they must expect their positions lo be exainined and answered. 

Mr. Johnson then spent some time in discussing the irrelevant questions which 
bad been introduced into the debate, after which, the House proceeded to a vote 
on his resolution, which he had moved as a substitute for Mr. Adams's substitute 
for Mr. Thompson's resolution, by striking out all after the word ''resolved;" 
and it passed in the affirmative: Yeas 116, nays 104. 

The main, question was then taken on the adoption of the resolution, and it 
passed in the affirmative: Yeas 114, nays 108, as follows : 

Yeas — Messrs. Alford, Andrews, Atherton, Banks, Beirne, Black, Blackwell, Botts, Boyd, 

A. V. Brown, A. G. Brown, Burke, W. O. Butler, S. H. Butler, Bynum, J. Campbell, W. 

B. Campbell, Carroll, Chapman, Coles, Colquitt, Connor, M. A. Cooper, Crabb, Craig, 
(Jrockctt, Cross, J. Davis, J. W. Davis, G. Davis, Dawson, Deberry, Dennis, Dellet, Drom- 
goole, Earl, Eastman, Fine, Fisher, Fornance, J. Garland, R. Garland, Gerry, Goggin, Gra- 
ham, Graves, Green, Griffin, Habersham, Hawkins, Hill of Va., Hill of N. C, Holleman, 
Holmes, Hopkins, Hubbard, Jameson, .Jenifer, J. Johnson, W. C. Johnson, N. Jones, J. W. 
Jones, Kemble, Leadbctter, Lewis, Lucas, McCarty, .McClellan, McCiilloch, McKay, Medill, 
Miller, .Montanya, Montgomery, Nistiet, Parish, Parris, Pelrikin, Pickens, Pope, Prentiss, 
Protlit, Kamsey, Rayner, Reynolds, Rhett, Rives, J. Rogers, Samuels, Shaw, A. Sniith, Stanly, 
Steenrod, Strong, Sumter, Sweeny, Taliaferro, Taylor, F. 'i'homas, P. F. Thomas, W. Thomp- 
son, J. Thompson, Triplett, Turney, Warren, Watterson, Weller, J. White, ]j. Williams, J. 
L. Williams, C. H. Williams, S. Williams, Wise, Worthington — 114. 

Nats — Messrs. Adams, J. Allen, J. W. Allen, H. J. Anderson, S. H. Anderson, Baker, 
Barnard, Beatty, Bell, Biddle, Bond, Brewster, Briggs, Brockway, A. Brown, Calhoun ,Carr, 
Casey, Chittenden, ('lark, Clitl'ord, J. Cooper, Cranston, (Jrary, Curtis, Gushing, Dana, Davcc, 
E. Davies, Doan, Doig, Duncan, Edwards, Ely, Evans, Everett, Fillmore, PMctcher, Floyd, 
Gates, Gentry, Giddings, Goode, Granger, Grinnell, Hall, Hand, W. S. Ha.stings, J. Hastings, 
Henry, Hollman, Hook, Howard, Hunt, Jackson, James, C. Johnston, Keim, Keiiipshall, Law- 
rence, Leet, Leonard, Lincoln, Lowell, Mallory, Marchand, Marvin, Mason, Mitchell, Monroe, 
Morgan, S. W. Morris, C. Morris, Naylor, Newhard, Ogle, Osborne, Palen, I'armentcr, Payn- 
ter, Peck, Randall, Randolph, Rariden, Reed, Ridgway, E Rogers, Russell, Saltonstall, Ser- 
geant, Simonton, Slade, J. Smith, T. Smith, Starkweather, Storrs, Stuart, Tillinghnst, 'Poland, 
Trumbull, Underwood, Vanderpoel, D. D. Wagener, P. J. Wagner, Wick, J. W. Williams, 
T. W. Williams, H. Williams— 108. 

So the House determined to amend their rules by resolving — 

That no petition, memorial, or resolution, or other paper, praying the abolition of slavery 
in the District of Columbia, or any State or Territory, or the slave trade between the States or 
Territories of the United States, in which it now exists, shall be received by this House or enter- 
tained in any way whatever. 



ss 



APPENDIX. 



MR. JOHNSON'S REMARKS IN DEFENCE OF GENERAL HARRISON. 

After Mr. Johnson had discussed ibe merits of his resolution, he concluded 
by allLidiiig to other questions which had hcen introduced into the debate, as fol- 
!ovvs : 

Mr. Speaker: It is a fact, curious of note, that every member of the Adminis- 
tration who has spoken in lliis discussion has attempted to give it a political aspect ; 
every member has charged General Harrison, either directly or indirectly, with 
being either an abolitioniiil or strongly favoring liie views of the abolitionists; and 
all of them have been lavish in eulogizing Mr. Van liuren as the great champion 
of Southern rigUts, Southern institutions, and Southern principles. I consider, 
then, that I am but in the line of my duty when I give a few passing observations 
to what has been said. 

One genlienian declares that Mr. Clay was not nominated by the Harrisburg 
convention, because he was a slaveholder, and was ortliodox on the question of 
slavery. Another proclaims that General Harrison was selected by the influence 
of the abolitionists of that convention. 

The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bvnum) has lately discovered that 
Mr. Clay is a genuine democrat, and that the delegation of Kentucky are sound, 
democranc, and trustworthy on the slave question. Mr. Clny will appreciate the 
compliment for what it is worth ; for if there is one man in America who under- 
stands better than anotiier not only the motives of men, but all the secret and 
occult sjirings of human action, that man is [lenry Clay. Had Mr. Clay been 
nominated, the gentleman, 1 opine, would liave called him an abolitionist and a 
federalist. But since Mr. Clay is so sound on tiiis vital question, as gentlemen 
properly regard it, and his colleagues in Congress in both Mouses, and their con- 
stituents, and he and they advocate General Harrison's election, and as th^ir 
democratic State has once gone for him, and will do so again, should not the 
weight of the gentleman's own authority induce him and all who think with him 
to keep in company with this excellent democratic community, by advocating, 
likewise, General Harrison for the Presidency? Kentucky is a border slave-hold- 
ing State, and her people are intelligent and democratic, and know their own in- 
terest very well, and know General Harrison and Ids sentiments, for he is a near 
neighbor, on tiie border of Ohio. And if Kentucky, so greatly interested in this 
question, will supfiorl him, North Carolina, so removed from the point of danger, 
can safely follow the example of Kentuck}'. 

Another gentleman, after discoursing on the subject of abolition, asks, with pe- 
culiar emphasis, why was Mr. Clay not nominated by the Harrisburg convention ? 
1 will answer that question, if it will give gentlemen satisfaction to hear the reason. 
The Harrisburg convention assembled not for the purpose of nominating any par- 
ticular gentlemen, but to bring forward a suitable candidate, whoever he might be, 
who could defeat most easily Martin Van Buren. They discovered, upon con- 
sultation, that, with Mr. Clay in the field, they would have to fight hard to be 
successful. The convention, composed of gentlemen from the centre to the cir- 
curnference of the Union, knew that Harrison's popularity was Iresh and vigorous; 
that he was potential at every position, from Harrisburg to the peri|)hery of the 
Union ; that, by nominating him, the North, the South, the East, and the West, 



59 

would unite zealous!}- upon him ; and tliat, by a sinple bold charge, after the man- 
ner of Napoleon, or himself in ihe last war, upon the enemy's centre, they would 
break their ranks, and scatter their wings, and rout them, horse, foot, and dra- 
goons, everywhere, and therefore wisely resolved to make a sure business of it. 
1 ask these honorable gentlemen if they would desire a better reason for the nomi- 
nation of General Harrison 1 And 1 hope it will be quite satisfactory to them, 
as it will surely l>e to the people. 

The gentl(Mnan (Von) North Carolina (Mr. Bynum) was laborinj^ for three days, 
with the adjuncts which I have before alhided to, to make General Harrison a 
rank abolitionist. Did he succeed? He succeeded about as well as the brave 
little urchin v»'ho attempted to kick down the moon, who aimed at, but missed it. 
He found himself, like the genth^man, to his own astonishment, on his back, and 
the silvery orb still shining proudly aloft in the cerulean. 

The vilest traducers of General Harrison, who have a respectful regard for 
sincerity, do not charge him with being either an abolitionest, or favoring their 
agitation. I hold now in my hand the Charleston Courier, whose editor states 
that Harrison's views on the question are all that the South could desire ; who 
comes out frankly, like an honorable and honest editor, and declares that he had 
done Harrison injustice, and cheerfully publishes his able speech, delivered at 
Vincennes. 

What can be sounder, more arcumentative, more statesmanlike, more patriotic, 
than his published o[)inions in his speech at V^incennes 1 How will Mr. Van 
Buren's views compare with them ] Mr. Van Buren has avowed in his letter to 
a committee of gentlemen of North Carolina, that Congress has the power to 
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.* Is such the Southern doctrine 1 If 
such are the views of gentlemen of the South, 1 stand aloof from them. But they 
answer, if the two Houses should pass a bill to abolish slavery, Mr. Van Buren is 
pledged to put his veto upon it. Is the South to be entrapped by such delusive 
security? What would a veto be worth in sucli a contingency? Nothing. The 
majority, once told in this House and the other, would alarm the South to disso- 
lution ; your Union, in des|)ite of the veto, would not last a moment. But, did 
Mr. Van Buren believe that during his administration there was likely to he a 
majority in either House? Was any sensilile or hnlf-dfluded inan in the South 
of such an opinion ? Mr. Van Buren avowed if as a clap-trap to catch tiie delu-^ 
ded. It was throwing sop to Cerberus. But let us progress in the analogy, or 
rather want of similarity, in their conduct and sentiments. Mr. Van Buren voted 
instructions, when a member of the Senate of New York, to the Senators and 



• The f illowinj; is an extract from the letter of Mr. Van Buren to Junius Amis, of North Car- 
olina, of March 6, 183« : 

"I roulil not, from the lights now before me, feel myself safe in pronouncins^ that Con<?ress 
does not possess the power of interfering with, or abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia." 

Mr. Van Hurrn, reaffirms that opinion of the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the 
District of Columbici, in the following letter : 

"Washington, March ^6, 1840. 

*'I have received your letter of 21st instant, and can have no objections to say, in reply, that 
the sentiments expressed in my letter to Junius Amis, and others, on the Gth March, 183.5, 
and 8'ibsequentiy repeated in my inaugural address, are not only still entertained by me, but 
have been greatly strengthened by subsequent experience and reflection. 

"I am fir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

"M. VAN BUREN. 

To Walter Y. Leake, Esq., Chairman, ^c." 

Upon which subject General Harrison, in a letter of 26th November, 18S6, addressed to 
Thomas Sloo, jr., holds the following sound, frank, and constitutional opinion : 

«' I do not believe that Contrress can abolish slavery in the Di.-'trict of Columbia, without the 
consent of the States of Virginia and Maryland, and the people of the District." 



60 



Representatives in Congress, lo vote against the admission of Missouri into the 
Union. Has that vole ingraliateci him wilii the Soutl)'? What did General Har- 
rison dol Ahhoueh a member of Congress from a free State, he voted wiih tiie 
South for the admission of Missonri, and made a patriotic sacrifice of iiimself for 
the South and for the Union. Will the South reward him now with ingratitude 
and denunciation 1 

Mr. Van Burt-n voted in the New York convention in favor of the right, and 
by his influence secured the passage of the measure, for free negroes to vote in 
that Stale. Are such the views of the South, and has that vote made the 
South revere him as a Northern man with Sontiiern principles'? 1 have been in 
Ontario county, New York, during an election, when one of the blackest negroes 
in America, as black a one as ever doftVd cap or dropped a smiling courtesy lo the . 
Vice President of the United States, was led to the polls by two or three of the 
followers of Mr. Van Buren, and he voted their ticket. 

I will not charge Mr. Van Buren with being an abolitionist. But I will say 
that he is just the kind of man who has the ability and the will to so shape his 
course, and to spread his net, as to take the majority of them to himself. It be- 
comes his policy to conciliate them. And here 1 will venture a prediction, that 
Colonel R. M. Johnson, who said in the debate on the Missouri question, Febru- 
ary 1, 1820, that "In the District of Columbia, containing a population of 
20,000 souls, and probably as many slaves as the whole of Missouri, the power 
of providing for tlieir emancipation rests with Congress alone," will not be run 
in the South, where the views of Governor Tyler are so well known. For the 
latter stands upon the high patriotic and democratic ground of defending the right 
of property from all unlawful and unconstitutional seizure or interference. 
Whilst the former will be run in all the Northern and Middle Slates, in order to 
becure the abolition, and ihat kindred and worse class of voters.* 

With hucii opinions of Mr. Van Buren as I have alluded to, some of the de- 
si<^ning politicians of the South have justified themselves at home for sustaining 
him against the inteiests of the South, because tfiey call him a Northern man 
with Southern principles. Is his sul)-Trea>nry scheme a measure in accordance 
with Southern principles, which is destined to hoard all the specie in the nation 
in the hands of the olTiceholders ? Is his Treasury bank, that measure of Ex- 
ecutive consolidation and Treasury note paper, a measure of Scutlurn admira- 
tion 1 Is his miserable derangement of t!ie currency a measure lavorable to the 
South, which has reduced the\eal and personal estate of the South, and all ils 
staples, to half the price they were when he ascended the Executive chair'? 

Is his informing the Congress of the United Stales, and the people, that the 
people expect too much of Government, when they desire the Government to 
adopt measures to improve the currency of the country, a sentiment which meets 
with a favorable response from the South 1 Do such opinions and such conduct 
endear Mr. Van Buren to the South ■? 

Sir, I detest the name of a Northern man with Southern principles. I detest 
iinv Executive that would sacrifice any portion of the Union to the rest. II it 
were true that Mr. Van Buren has done so, as a Soulhern Representative I would 
abhor the motive and the man. 

If he has sold, betrayed, or sacrificed the interests of the North to the South, 
is such a man trustworihyl If he has turned traitor to the North to buy up the 
South, if he has done sucii a thing once, will he not, if it is his interest, turn lalse 

♦ Since this preJiclion was made, the Van Buren party of Virginia have dropped Colonel 
Johnson, and nominated Governor Polk— as they did in Tennessee— whilst in Pennsylvania 
they have nominated Colonel R. M. Johnson. In this way the South is to be gulled, and if 
Mr". Van Buren should again be elected, which is not likely, Colonel Johnson will have the 
South transferred as before to him. The South is credulous. 



61 

to yon, as lie has to his friends at the Nortli? Will he not sacrifice you as read- 
ily as lie would the people of the North? Is his attachment stronger for you 
than it is for those who first supported him, who made him all that he is 1 And 
if it is true that he is now false to them, is he not chargeable with the vilest in- 
gratitude 1 

Will the proud and boasted chivalry of the South — (hose pure and immaculate 
patriots, take such a man to their bosum 1 Will they hug him to their embrace, 
who has Slung the bosom that first warmed him 1 The ranting and selfish puli- 
ticians of the South may do it, 1 will not. Those who expect in time to get their 
reward may boast of him as a Northern man with Southern princi[)les ; but I es- 
teem him as he is — a Norlhern man without principles ; or, if he has principles, 
they are as transferable as a pair of bar-room slippers — changed as easily, and 
made to fit any body — a Chinese lady or an Amazonian — a Lilliputian or a 
Gulliver. 

Sir, how does Harrison contrast with him ? As " Hyperion to a Satyr." His 
principles are stable ; his views on the constitution sound and republican : his 
views upon the slave question are all that the South could desire — what the Norti) 
should not dispute. I boast not that he is either a Western man with Eastern 
principles, or that he is a Southern man with Northern principles, or wiih prin- 
ciples aniagonistical to, or antipodes to, one portion of the Union. His mind, 
like his principles, is capacious enough to spread over the broad horizon of the 
nation's widest circumference, and to encourage and foster every inteiest in the 
country, without sacrificing any one portion of it to the rest. The South will be 
safe, and prosper under his administration, as well as the north ; and, by his elec- 
tion, land and staples, prices, wages, at.d business, would increase in every quarter 
of the Union. The body politic would revive from the paralysis which now 
prostrates it. The entire South should go for him, and, I trust, will. Not only 
has Kentucky given him her vote, but Maryland, more interested in this question 
than any Slate in the Union, has once given him a majority of nearly four thou- 
sand, and will increase it. The district which I represent, binding on both Penn- 
sylvania and the District of Columbia, the most important slaveholditig district in 
the Union, touching the two points of agitation and danger, gave Harrison, at the 
last presidential election, about nine hundred majority, and will, at the next, 
greatly increase that majority. Tiie district adjoining, refiresented by my col- 
league (Mr. Jenifer,) who is one of the largest slaveholders in the State, and his 
district contains more slaves than any one in the State, and it likewise borders on 
the D. strict of Columbia, gave General Harrison some eight hundred majority. 
Look on the other side of the Potomac, and you will find that the district (here 
hanging round the District of Columbia, (Mr. McCarty's,) and so deeply inter- 
ested in this quesiion, will give General Harrison not less (lian a thousand or eight 
hundred majority. Then, when those who are so deeply concerned in (his ques- 
tion regard (heir interest safest if General Harrison should be elected, will not (he 
remote South, so far from danger, regard it as the highest proof that tli«'y will be 
secure ; nay, will (hey no( feel it to be a duty (o (hemselves and (o (heir country to 
advocate (he election of General Harrison instead of Mr. Van Buren? 

Will not (he whole South unite with (he North and West, and go ru mossc for 
General Harrison, and rid the country of the inipotent, vicious, and knavish men 
who now adminis(er (he Governmenl 1 Who (hat did not vole for him before is 
not now impressed with (he belief of the misrule which has prostrated every in- 
terest in (he country, and paralyzed every branch of business 1 

For one, I must say that I did no( vote for General Harrison at the last elec- 
tion. I could not vote for Mr. Van Buren ; I preferred either Mr. Clay or Mr. 
Webster. It is also true that I preferred the nomination, at (he la(e Harrisburg 
Couvenlion, of eidier Mr. Clay or General Scot(. I( is mos( true that 1 rejoice 
that neither was nominated, and that the Convention wisely selected General 



62 

Harrison. I had hardly paused, in other pursuits and with my prpferenres, to 
examine carefully his entire history and chanuier minutely. 1 have, howevfr, 
carefully exomii-ied and contemplated both. His life is a beautiful and instruciive 
studv, replete with incidents, and marked by wisdom in all its chequered and 
varied scenes. It should be familiar to every American parent, and be llie cum- 
panii)n of every school boy. 

We [Ind his birth-place'in Virginia, just before the Revolutionary war. Born 
of a mother who, like the daughter of the Scipio, could point to her son as her 
brightest and most valued jewel ; his father standing side by side with Washing- 
ton" and Henrv, and the great and glorious men who gave lustre to that Staie in 
the proudest days of her liistory, and his name recorded on the Declaraiiou of 
Independence, "inheriting all the noblo enthusiasm of his parents and the times 
of his youth, he goes forth with a commission from Washiuiilon, lo carvt; bis own 
destiny in the ranks of danger. Though youthful, ripe in mind, collected and 
brave when danger threatened, kind and gentle in all his social relations, we see 
him reaping laurels with his sword on many a hard-fought battle-field. The war 
ended, skilful in civil council, prompt to act upon the most intricate questions, and 
his judgment always conirolliuij his decisions. 

Again we see him, in the hour of our country's perils, throwing aside his civil 
duties and its honors, and yet rising in [)ublic esteem, until he is commander-in- 
chief of the Norllivvestern army. Not executing, as iurmeily, perilous dispatches 
i'rom his general, but leading on to victory his gallant and devoted soldiers; sliow- 
ins, in all his hard-fought battles, a prudent firmness and a daring courage, which 
inspired his men wiih confidence, whilst it spread dismny and terror to his enemies, 
and made him victorious in ail his dreadful engagements. The war ended, you 
find him again in civil stations, as prompt and as useful as in the battle's Irunt. 
As Governor his conduct was faultless, and his abilities a|)preciated. 

In Conoress we find him devising a system to divide the public lands in small 
lois, so that every poor man could purchase a home and a farm. In the Senate, 
wise in counsel, able in debate — his opinions and advice esteemed by all. As a 
Minister, next to his anxiety for the Jilory of his own country, his solicitude «as 
emraged for the pros[)erity of the young rep'iblics of South America. What man 
living has been in so many stations so variant in their duties, and what man liv- 
ing could have discharged them with such consummate ability and judgment? 
Who has a mind so well balanced, with so many high traits of intellect so well 
developed 1 And this eminent man, who has added so much lustre lo the fame 
of bis country, is traduced and slandered by every adventuring politician of the 
Van Buren narty. Go on and denounce him, gentlemen, wiili your vilest epithets. 
You but make his cause the cause of the people. A man who has the civic wnaih 
entwined with the marti;)l on his brow cannot be injured by denunciation. The 
unnatural hand is withered that would pluck one sprig from the chaplet won by 
the toil of the soldier and the stutesman. He is one of (he people, identified in 
feeling and interest with them, and they with him. They are his defenders and 
his friends. The people have themselves l)r()Ught him forward without his solici- 
tation, and the peo|)le will support him ; and he stand* as deeply imbedded in the 
atTections of the American peo|)le as the Allegany and the Andes do in their soil. 
Hurl your denunciations against him like the fitful and wrathful cloud against the 
mountain's brow ; it will but fertilize and keep in perennial freshness the ever- 
green on its summit. 

The peoiile have called upon his name to be their candidate for the Presiden- 
cy because you have abused their confidence, not redeemed your pledges, and 
have filled the land with suflTering, bankruptcy, and distress. You promised them 
gold when you closed the doors of the banks, and yon have afflicted them v.itli 
poverty. You have made tiie banks suspend, and now you tell tiie people that 
they must work lor as low wages as the people of Europe- You have told the 



63 

manufacturer and tlie morcliant that they have no right to trade wiili credit, and 
you hnve forced the worksliops to he closed, and ihe factory hands to be dismiss- 
ed. You promised tiie farmer belter [)rices for his ftour, liis corn, and his pork, 
and he cannot sell eiiher for the cost of producing. You have abused and de- 
ceived the people, and now you insult them if they complain. You have hoard- 
ed up all the gold by your otTice-holders, and left the peojile not even good bank 
paper to du business upon. You have tried to destroy the capital of the country, 
and have reduced all wages. You have been eitiier too ignorant or too vicious 
not to know that wages must fall when money is scarce, and that wages can only 
be high when capital is plenty. You have reduced by your measures the wages 
of the laborer and ihe mechanic, whilst your salaries have been increased by the 
scarcity of money. You can pay yourselves in gold and silver, w!lil^t the me- 
chanic, the farmer, and the mejcliant, cannot dispose of their commodities for 
even good bank pa[)er. 

The day of retribution is close at hand. You have refused to listen to the com- 
plaints and suffering of the people; and they will do themselves justice at the bal- 
lut-box. The people are moving in their majesty and their power, and will elect 
General Harrison by acclamation. 

Ho is a farmer as well as a soldier and statesman ; he understands the interest 
of the farmers, atid has a sympathy, wliicli you have not, for the laboring man 
and the mechanic. The peo[)le will call him fiom the plough, as the Ronuins did 
Cincinnatus of old, to quiet domestic confusion ;ind disorder, and to put the Re- 
pul)lic once more iti a prosperous condition. Post up your books, then, I tell you, 
fairly, and square your accounts honestly, or burn up your depariinenls as you 
liavt; done heretofore, or he will jjunisli your at my of defaulters. 

The voice of the people is heard already like the moving of mighty waters. 
They have agitated the waters that healing may spring from them. You hnd as 
\vell try to stop the voice of the wind, as lo stifle the voice of the people. Your 
selfish office-holders who have fattened upon the substance of the people will try 
to oppose their will, but it will be useless. The people can and will "shake 
them off as easily as the lion does the dew drops from his mane." 

The people will ever remember the pariotic sentiment of General Har- 
rison, "thnr, to preserve their liberties, they must do their own voling and (htit 
own fighting.'''' 



T RM' ' - .: V 






^f^kf^mf^ 



^A^^„A,OA.^'^A. O^'" 



^la^o"."'! vri'.v-inr 



^^nf^Rpf 






^r>^^'A^'^,^. 



mmm^', 






'mmm^^mfff^^^mmw' 






fn^S^ 



'mm^^^^^Mm^ 



A^'y^Aor^A^A^WW^C/^' 






v'^jiSRjiiini^i^j 









^'^^''i:00?^^lN^^ 



f>,^fi^mf^k:l 



''^^rf^m^f^^^ffpiff^: 



.«;f^»«*P*«^Hsstfs>^^ 






'niW'^-'-^^^^'-r^^, 



^mrsf<f^' 



'^-^A' ^■'^A'A/ 









■/■Avyi^ 



^^/-^ >v n'^ 



'^Ar^Or>/^An/*^?^ 



^^.A^r^'^^AAA^;^^ 



rA^r^!^f^r\r^.fyf^f^kff^^ 






^m^^m^m^GM^^f^ 



'fi^^S^ 



Va A'^ Cs "-'ft -: '*■ 






A/=5.^,® ; '):^'?- a'>., («,''-• ^.^ ■^Z 












..„^n^,'>u 









vr.©A©/ 



,^^*^a; 



^^S^\n/^''^^^ 



'AA^A 












^^^.fsrr\mM^rs^> 












,^afl^^ 










mm 



M 






Pi 

m 







LIBRARY Oh UUNUMC 



01 1 899 498 A ♦ 



